Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rhymney Valley Joint Sewerage District) Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Lancaster and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (UKRAINE MINORITY).

Major ELLIOT: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in regard to the settlement of the Ukrainian question; and, if not, whether he intends to put this matter on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?

Major HILLS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many Ukrainian members of the Polish Sejm are now in prison; how many have been imprisoned without trial; and whether the Committee of Three obtained any assurances from the Polish Government with regard to the release or immediate trial of those members of the Polish Parliament who have been imprisoned without trial?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Since my reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 15th of July, no further progress has been reported. A decision whether or not this question shall be placed on the
agenda of the Council of the League of Nations will be taken after the meeting of the Committee of Three at Geneva in September. My right hon. Friend has been informed that 17 Ukrainian members of the last Sejm and Senate were arrested since the 1st of September, 1930, of whom one is still in prison and three others are on bail awaiting trial. Of the remaining 13, 12 have been convicted and one acquitted. Three Ukrainian members of the present Sejm and Senate have been arrested, of whom two were also members of the last Parliament and are included in the above figures. One of these three has been tried and convicted. The other two are on bail. All these sentences are subject to revision by higher courts. The Committee of Three received no assurances from the Polish Government regarding the release or immediate trial of these prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement as to the present position in Spain; and whether there is still any form of censorship in operation?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has about the recent fighting in Spain; and whether British subjects or interests have been affected?

Mr. DALTON: The session of the Cortes is still proceeding and a draft of the new Constitution is being prepared. Pending its adoption the Provisional Government remain in power. In Seville there have been serious riots which, however, have now been suppressed, and the situation appears to be calm. My right hon. Friend has no information that British subjects or interests have been in any way affected, and, so far as he is aware, there is now no form of censorship in operation in Spain.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SITUATION.

Sir K. WOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is
aware that martial law has been declared in the Peking and Tientsin area and that the Manchurian authorities are requisitioning military supplies; and whether he can make a further statement as to the position in China generally?

Mr. DALTON: Martial law was declared in Peking and Tientsin on the 20th of July. My right hon. Friend has no information that military supplies have been requisitioned by the Manchurian authorities. There has been no further material change in the general situation in China since my reply on Wednesday last.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the names of the British subjects who have died in captivity during the previous throe years while under the jurisdiction of the national Government of China; and can he state what instructions are given to the British authorities in China as to warning British subjects of the dangers in visiting the remote districts of China?

Mr. DALTON: Apart from Mr. Thor-burn, whose fate is still unknown, six British subjects have died in captivity in China during the past three years, namely, Mr. D. F. Pike, Father Leonard, Mr. Scarlett, Miss Nettleton, Miss Harrison, and Father Tierney. The British authorities in China have standing instructions to give advice and warning to British subjects who reside in, or wish to proceed to, districts where there is known or believed to be danger.

Mr. DAY: Did any of the persons mentioned receive these warnings before they proceeded inland?

Mr. DALTON: Warnings would almost certainly have been given to them.

Mr. McSHANE: Has any compensation been given to the relatives?

Mr. DALTON: I think not, but, if my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will make inquiry.

MR. JOHN THORBUEN.

Sir K. WOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now give the House any further information
concerning the safety of Mr. John Thorburn, who has been missing at Shanghai since 3rd June last?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information as to the results of the representations which he has been making to the Chinese Government with regard to the disappearance of Mr. John Thorburn?

Mr. DALTON: Sir Miles Lampson left Peking yesterday morning by aeroplane for Nanking with the object of delivering the message of His Majesty's Government personally to Marshal Chiang-Kai-Shek. No further report from His Majesty's Minister can be expected for some days, in view of the fact that the Marshal is at present conducting military operations in the Province of Kiangsi.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Thorburn received warning that he was residing in a dangerous locality?

Mr. DALTON: Mr. Thorburn was residing in Shanghai until he set out for Soochow. It is not likely that any special warning would have been given him with regard to Shanghai.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: It will be the Parliamentary Recess very shortly. If the Secretary of State receives any communication from Sir Miles Lampson will he see that it is published, so that Members may know exactly what has happened?

Mr. DALTON: In view of the interest very naturally and rightly taken in this case, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give publicity to any further developments.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH TOURISTS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, for the benefit of British tourists in Russia, he can inform the House as to the official intimation which has just been made in the Russian Press by the Commissariat for Foreign Trade, stating that the inducements offered for tours in Russia in the way of reserved hotel and
railway accommodation by the Russian State Tourist Agency as published in this country are without official sanction and cannot be carried into effect?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has seen a statement to this effect in an organ of the British Press. He is inquiring from His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow whether it has any foundation in fact.

Sir W. DAVISON: I take it that the result of this inquiry will be published, so that British citizens intending to go on these tours, which are so extensively advertised, may have the information?

Mr. DALTON: Until we get information that it is true, I think we had better, and may perhaps more safely, assume that there is nothing in it, because up to the present time, the In-Tourist, the organisation which is referred to, have conducted a number of these tours, and many people have been out, and, although conditions are not luxurious—nor, I think, are they advertised as such—these people have returned reasonably content with what they have found.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Are British tourists in Russia required to comply with the same conditions as Russian tourists coming to England?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman get a report from the hon. Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) and from Mr. Bernard Shaw when they return?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Ask her yourself.

CURRENCY REGULATIONS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government still require passengers from the East coming to Great Britain via the Trans-Siberian Railway to purchase the equivalent of £6 per person in roubles to cover their alleged expenses on the way; and what is the result of the recent representations made by the British Ambassador to the Soviet Government in this respect?

Mr. DALTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend has received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in
Moscow stating that he has been informed by the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs that the regulations in question, so far as they apply to passengers in transit, have now been withdrawn, and that such passengers may consequently now take out with them from Soviet territory as much foreign currency as they bring in without deduction.

Sir W. DAVISON: With regard to the particular case to which I drew the Foreign Secretary's attention, and other similar cases, will the substantial sum of £18 be restored to the persons from whom it was taken?

Mr. DALTON: We will keep in mind the possibility of getting these regulations made retrospective, but, so far as our information goes up to the present, it merely is that they were withdrawn early in the present month, and that they will not apply as from that date. The question of their application in previous cases is another matter. We will bear it in mind.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in previous cases they had no notice, even on inquiry at Cook's office in Moscow, that any such charges would be made?

DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER CLAIMS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a reply from the Soviet Ambassador with reference to the telegram which he sent to the Soviet Government regarding the failure of the Soviet representatives on the Anglo-Soviet Debt Committee to submit any proposals to the joint committee?

Mr. DALTON: There has been no further development since I replied to the hon. Member the day before yesterday.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that this matter has been under consideration for nearly two years, and will he see that no further delay takes place?

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the Foreign Secretary received any communication from the chairman of this Sub-Committee B?

Mr. SPEAKER: There seems no necessity for any further supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCBIMINATION).

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has been reached with the Portuguese Government with regard to the discrimination which has been practised against British shipping in Portuguese ports?

Mr. DALTON: The Portuguese Government decreed the abolition of discriminatory maritime and quay dues on the 2nd of February, and regulations putting the decree into effect were promulgated on the 1st of July. A few days later the Portuguese Government decided to abolish progressively, over a period of years, flag discrimination in the form of Customs rebate on goods carried in Portuguese bottoms. The text of the decree which is to give effect to this decision has, however, not yet been rceived.

Mr. HANNON: Why is it that, in view of the constant help that we have given to the Portuguese Government in the past, any discrimination at all should be exercised in relation to our shipping?

Mr. DALTON: I hope that we have now arrived at a stage, as a result of representations both by the late Ambassador and by his successor, by which this discrimination may be removed, or at any rate an undertaking given that within a very short period of time it will be removed.

THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the total quantity and declared value of (1) tin ore and concentrates and (2) tin blocks, ingots, bars and slabs imported into the United Kingdom during the years 1929 and 1930 and consigned from foreign and British countries, respectively.


—
Quantity.
Declared Value.


1929.
1930.
1929.
1930.


Tin ore and concentrates:
Tons.
Tons.
£
£


Consigned from foreign countries
…
…
75,529
60,683
8,360,044
4,655,614


Consigned from British countries
…
…
17,247
15,771
2,351,904
1,629,486


Tin blocks, ingots, bars and slabs:








Consigned from foreign countries
…
…
1,612
625
352,673
98,464


Consigned from British countries
…
…
13,078
11,222
2,677,847
1,754,724


NOTE.—The re-exports of imported tin ore and concentrates are relatively small, but in the case of tin blocks, ingots, bars and slabs they are large, amounting to 11,853 tons (£2,541,022), or 80 per cent. of the total imports, in 1929, and 7,535 tons (£1,210,799), or about 65 per cent. of the total imports, in 1930,

GERMANY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties recently experienced by British commercial houses doing business with Germany owing to the various financial restrictions in force in that country; and what steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to assist British traders with Germany while in no way weakening the necessary measures taken by the German Government?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No difficulties of this nature have been brought to my notice, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have any specific cases I will have them examined.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question of the important re-export trade in fruit to Germany, which is very much hampered?

Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me information.

TIN (IMPORTS).

Mr. MARCUS: 58.
(for Mr. SINKINSON) asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of imported tin from foreign countries and from the Empire, respectively, for the years 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. GILLETT: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPRT.

Following is the answer:

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: 74.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the White City section of the British Industries Pair will be brought into line this year with the Olympia section as regards allowing exhibitors to make their own arrangements for hiring stands or to utilise stock stands which they possess for exhibition purposes?

Mr. GILLETT: At the request of the British Textiles Exhibition Committee, arrangements have been made to ensure that the decoration and stand construction of the Textile Section of the Fair shall maintain the standard which was a feature of the British Cotton Textile Section of the Fair in February last. In these circumstances the Department is unable to agree to stands being erected in next year's Textile Section of a different standard from that which the industry, as represented by the Committee in question, desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF LOCARNO.

Mr. MANDER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the Government have considered the advisability of abandoning in its present form the Treaty of Locarno on its termination?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

Mr. MANGER: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that in any extension of the Treaty it is desirable that its terms should be dependent on general disarmament by all parties thereto, in-eluding particularly France?

Mr. DALTON: I hesitate to name particulars. What the hon. Member asked me was whether His Majesty's Government have considered the advisability of abandoning the Treaty of Locarno in its present form, and the answer is in the negative. I would rather not be led on to other fields.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION.

Mr. MANDER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have considered, or are prepared
to consider, joint action between this country, the United States of America, and Germany for the solution of the financial and economic difficulties of Europe?

Mr. DALTON: It is the aim of His Majesty's Government to seek the widest possible measure of international cooperation for the solution of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that it may be necessary to act independently of France, and is that matter under consideration by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. DALTON: I am not sure that that is a question which it would be helpful for me to reply to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question cannot be asked on this question.

Mr. WISE: Will any statement be made before the House rises as to what is the policy of the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the original question.

Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to ask a question which appears to arise directly out of the question on the Paper, namely, what the Government policy is in regard to this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: A private notice question on the same subject will be answered later.

Mr. WISE: I was not aware of that.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be able to make any statement on the international financial situation before the House rises?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I do not think I could usefully make any statement on these matters at the present time.

Mr. BALDWIN: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House is about to rise until the 20th of October, and would the Government consider adopting the procedure which has
been followed on several occasions in recent years under which the House, if necessary, could be summoned at any time which might be deemed to be desirable?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and the Government will certainly consider it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there anything which prevents the Leader of the Opposition from raising this matter himself on the Appropriation Bill if he desires to do so?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CINEMATOGRAPH APPARATUS.

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which of His Majesty's ships have now installed sound-film cinematograph apparatus; and will he give particulars?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): None, Sir.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything has been done with the apparatus installed in the ships which have already shown cinematograph films?

Mr. ALEXANDER: A new type has been tried experimentally on a recent cruise. Reports on that experiment are being considered by the Admiralty, and the next point which arises is the question of funds.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE-MAN: In the event of any orders being placed, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are placed with British firms?

Mr. ALEXANDER: All I can say is that the apparatus which has been used in the experiment includes apparatus by British firms, and the matter is now being considered.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is American apparatus also being considered?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot lay down conditions as to what men should do in
the spending of money which arises from their own activities. These are not Government funds.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British firms are not allowed to tender for cinematograph films in the American Navy?

OIL WASTE (DISCHARGE).

Major SALMON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of His Majesty's ships are at present fitted with separators for preventing the discharge overboard of oily water and oily Waste of all kinds, as distinguished from separators for dealing with lubricating oil; and, if the ships are not so fitted, whether steps will be taken to fit economical and effective separators on board?

Mr. ALEXANDER: His Majesty's ships are not fitted with separators for dealing primarily with water contaminated by oil fuel. Strict regulations are in force to prevent the discharge of any oily refuse into the sea from His Majesty's ships within 50 miles of any coast. Further, no necessity arises for discharge of appreciable amounts of oily refuse from His Majesty's ships into the sea since oil-separating barges are available at the principal naval bases. It is not considered necessary, therefore, to fit separators of this type in His Majesty's ships.

Major SALMON: Is it not a fact that there is a great amount of oil and oily water discharged into the sea; and is it not also a fact that there are separators in existence which could be used to prevent this oil being deposited in the sea and thus affecting the birds?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am aware of the experiments which have been carried out with different forms of apparatus. I can only say that the strict regulations under which the Admiralty work make it unnecessary for us to go any further than we do go in this matter. At all the principal naval bases we are using separating apparatus.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that a very little oil covers an enormous area of sea and that thousands of gulls perish as a result?

FORT BLOCKHOUSE, PORTSMOUTH (ACCOMMODATION).

Captain W. G. HALL: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if, in view of the inadequacy of the messing, sleeping and general facilities for petty officers, seamen and stokers at Fort Blockhouse, Portsmouth, he will take steps immediately to put in hand the building of the proposed new block?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Provision for commencing the work has been made in the current year's estimates and the letting of a contract is being expedited as much as possible.

Captain HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter as one of urgency in view of the fact that men are sleeping on the floors and tables, that the petty officers are in the old instruction shed, and that the conditions are very bad?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As a matter of fact, I think that tenders are in, as regards this work. There is some practical difficulty, but I hope that it will be dealt with soon.

ROYAL HOSPITAL SCHOOL, HOLBROOK.

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new buildings at Holbrook which are being erected for the extension of the educational work heretofore carried on at the Royal Hospital School at Greenwich will be ready for occupation; what number of boys he anticipates will be eligible for admission to the admirals' hostels which are an outstanding feature of the new training scheme at Holbrook; and if plans are yet complete for the proposed agricultural instruction on the Holbrook farm?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I hope that the new buildings at Holbrook for the accommodation of the Royal Hospital School will be ready in 1933 for the tranfer of the school from Greenwich. The number to be accommodated at Holbrook will be limited to 860 to begin with, but the number of boys eligible for admission will be considerably in excess of this number. The proposal for agricultural instruction is as yet tentative.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any particular change in the organisation at Greenwich following upon this change?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should like notice of that question.

CIVIL EMPLOYMENT (FACILITIES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the complaints that men about to be discharged on pension after 22 years' service are not sent to their own depots during the last few months prior to their retirement to enable them to take steps to secure civilian employment; and whether, in the interests of the men concerned, he will allow them at least three months in their own depot before they retire to give them every opportunity of looking for work?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 11th February last (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 418–9, Vol. 248).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything about it?

Mr. ALEXANDER: If the hon. Member reads the reply to which I have referred, I think he will see that he is pressing me to do something which is rather unreasonable,

LOWER DECK PROMOTION.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons why the four engine-room artificers promoted to commissioned rank to date 1st July, 1931, were given the rank and title of mate (E) and not sub-lieutenant (E), in view of the recent decision to drop the title of mate?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As I indicated in reply to a supplementary question on 20th May (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1951), the change of title applies only to those to be entered into commissioned rank under the provisions of the new scheme.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the ages of the ex-cadet engineer and executive officers who were promoted to commander's rank on 30th June last and the ages of the ex-mates (E) and ex-mates so promoted?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The average age is:

Executive officers:
Ex-Cadet—34 years 10 months.
Ex-Mate—39 years 11 months.
Engineer Officers:
Ex-Cadet—33 years 1 month.
Ex-Mate (E)—41 years 9 months.

SPECIALIST COURSES.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the numbers of lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants (ex-mate) now undergoing the specialist courses for gunnery, torpedo, navigation, anti-submarine, signal, wireless telegraphy, and staff duties; and whether any of these officers are likely to be selected for the next courses?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No lieutenants or lieutenant-commanders, ex-mate, are now undergoing any of the courses mentioned. Seven of these officers are on the list of candidates for these courses and will be considered for selection on their merits with other officers, but it is not possible to say in advance whether they will be selected.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES ISLANDS.

Mr. McSHANE: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the assistance applied for recently by the residents of the Seychelles Islands; whether the report of the commissioner who was sent to that colony to investigate has now been received; and when it will be available?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The Seychelles Planters' Association recently submitted to the Governor certain proposals for relieving their financial difficulties. As to the report of the commissioner who was sent to the colony, I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the recent visit of Mr. F. A. Stockdale, Agricultural Advisor to the Secretary of State which preceded the communication from the Planters' Association. His report, which related almost entirely to agricultural conditions, has been received, and pending its consideration no decision as to publication has been reached.

Mr. McSHANE: Has any reply been given to the request of the residents for financial assistance?

Dr. SHIELS: It has not been found possible to agree with some of the proposals, and others are still under consideration.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the report?

Dr. SHIELS: Such a report is not normally published, but, if hon. Members desire it, a copy will be placed in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Uganda Government has decided to prohibit all films which are not suitable for exhibition of all classes of the community; and whether there are any other Colonies where Europeans are compelled to restrict themselves to the same films as appeal to the minds of the native population?

Dr. SHIELS: I understand that it has always been the policy of the Government of Uganda not to discriminate between films for exhibition to Europeans and non-Europeans, and that there has been no recent change in this respect. The same policy is adopted by the majority of Colonial Governments, and was strongly endorsed in the report of the Colonial Films Committee which was published and presented to Parliament in July, 1930.

Mr. HORRABIN: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to whether or whore the natives in any part of the Empire, including this island, can see films which are suited to adult minds?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (DEATH SENTENCES).

Mr. MATTERS: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons were sentenced to death in each of the Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories during each of the years 1924 to 1928; for what offences they were convicted; and how many of such persons were executed?

Dr. SHIELS: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Statement showing (a) Capital Sentences and (b) Executions in the British Colonies not possessing responsible Government, Protectorates and Mandated Territories administered under the Authority of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of the years 1924–1928 inclusive.


—
Offence.
1924.
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.


Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.


Kenya
Murder
…
22
11
17
14
14
12
13
10
19
17


N. Rhodesia*
—
13
2
22
3
38
6
9
1
13
8


Nyasaland
Murder
…
16
4
10
3
6
3
5
2
20
15


Somaliland*
—
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
(a)
1
(a)
2


Tanganyika
Murder
…
(a)
45
(a)
48
(a)
49
(a)
33
(a)
59


Uganda*
—
(a)
13
(a)
18
(a)
15
(a)
11
(a)
7


Zanzibar
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1
Nil


Gambia
Murder
…
(a)
4
1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Gold Coast (including Togoland) under British Mandate.
Murder
…
(a)
10
(a)
8
17
11
14
5
64
23


Nigeria (including Cameroons) under British Mandate.
Murder
…
(a)
76
84
77
97
74
98
65
106
75


Sierra Leone
Murder
…
3
2
4
2
11
8
9
9
5
3


Basutoland
Murder
…
1
1
2
1
2
1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Bechuanaland Protectorate
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
2
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1
Nil


Swaziland
Murder
…
5
Nil
11
1
2
1
2
Nil
Nil
Nil


Rape
…
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Cyprus
Murder
…
8
7
7
1
8
8
5
4
9
7


Gibraltar
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
(a)
1
Nil
Nil


Bahamas
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
(a)
1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Barbados
Murder
…
1
1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1
Nil
2
1


Jamaica
Murder
…
8
8
3
2
4
3
5
1
6
4


Leeward Islands
—
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Trinidad
Murder
…
4
3
4
3
5
4
4
2
4
4


Windward Islands
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
(a)
1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Bermuda
—
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


British Guiana
Murder
…
1
1
Nil
Nil
2
Nil
8
4
5
4


British Honduras
Murder
…
(a)
2
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
(a)
1

—
Offence.
1924.
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.


Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.
Capital Sentences.
Executions.


Ceylon*
—
63
42
59
34
68
45
54
38
75
45


Mauritius
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
1
1
Nil
Nil
3
1


Seychelles
Murder
…
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
(a)
2


Fiji
Murder
…
1
1
8
4
3
1
1
1
Nil
Nil


Western Pacific:














British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
Murder
…
6
6
1
Nil
2
1
13
9
9
6


Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.
—
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


New Hebrides





No information.







Tonga












St. Helena





No returns received.







Hong Kong
Murder
…
3
1
3
2
6
4
2
2
1
1


Piracy
…
—
—
—
—
3
3
15
15
—
—


Straits Settlements
Murder
…
14
9
19
14
19
16
15
7
13
12


Malay States*
—
(a)
6
(a)
8
(a)
5
(a)
19
(a)
9


Palestine
Murder
…
(a)
3
(a)
n
(a)
1
8
7
9
7


Falkland Islands
—
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


* Nature of offence not stated.


(a) No particulars of the total number of capital sentences are available. All Dependencies are required under the Regulations for His Majesty's Colonial Service to submit to the Secretary of State annual returns of capital sentences executed, but these returns do not in all cases indicate the total number of such sentences pronounced.

Oral Answers to Questions — RODRIGUEZ (DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE).

Mr. McSHANE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Rodriguez the post of Director of Agriculture has been vacant for a considerable time; that the official at present acting in that capacity is receiving only half the salary attached to that post; and when it is proposed to make an appointment to fill the vacancy?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has received no information as to a vacancy in the post of Agricultural Superintendent in Rodriquez. The post of Director of Agriculture, Mauritius, is at present vacant and it is hoped that it will be filled shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, NAIROBI).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of Slate for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the inadequate hospital accommodation for Europeans, Asiatics, and Africans in Nairobi; and whether the Government intends to take any action to assist in its improvement?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on 17th June last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA TERRITORY (MR. C. M. MORRISON).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the claim of Mr. C. M. Morrison, an ex-planter, of Tanganyika Territory, for a free pardon has been considered on any occasion by the governor of Tanganyika Territory; and, if not, whether any request is now to be made to him by His Majesty's Government to consider this claim?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what further changes in personnel in the civil and judicial administration of Palestine it is proposed to make?

Dr. SHIELS: No doubt some changes will be necessary as a result of the recent Financial Commission, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. KNIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the judicial side is under review?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I am not able to add anything to what I have said.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the claims of Members of this House be considered when these judicial appointments are made?

Mr. FRANK SMITH: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has not been drawn to the fact that the Palestinian legal administration acted in defiance of the findings of the court, and whether he will make inquiries into this, and see that it is put an end to, as it is leading to considerable dissatisfaction?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. My attention has not been called to that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

LOW AND DANGEROUS FLYING (COMPLAINTS).

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of complaints that have been made to the Air Ministry during the previous two years for either low or dangerous flying in Great Britain by service aircraft; and will he give particulars of what action has been taken by his Department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I regret that it would not be practicable to give the actual number of complaints of this character without a laborious scrutiny of records. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that it is relatively small, and that every complaint is the subject of most careful investigation. Suitable disciplinary action is taken in every case in which the complaint is substantiated.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the police have asked for his collaboration in any prosecutions against these pilots?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, it is not a question of police collaboration as there are rules affecting these particular cases.

Mr. EDE: Can my hon. Friend say what is the maximum punishment inflicted in any one case with regard to suitable disciplinary action?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No, I cannot answer that question without notice, but I can inform the hon. Member that there have been 10 cases of general court-martial.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that there is no objection to flying by night; it is only to flying by day?

AIR MANOEUVRES.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the annoyance and loss of sleep caused by the recent all-night air battle over London, he will take steps to arrange the air manoeuvres in future so as to avoid a recurrence of this?

Mr. MONTAGUE: As my hon. Friend knows, the recent air exercises were of a quite exceptional character. Such exercises are moreover of short duration and are essential for the training of units of the Royal Air Force in their duties in defence of the Capital. I may add that the ordinary night flying practice of units is usually completed before midnight.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could not these exercises be made more realistic by dropping a few dummy bombs?

Mr. WINTERTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that great numbers of people were unable to sleep during the night?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that they could not sleep at all if the Air Force were not efficient?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MAIL SERVICES (AUSTRALIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is expected that a regular air-mail service between this country and
Australia will be in operation; and what is the present position?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot at present say more than that the establishment o a regular air-mail service to Australia is still under consideration by the Governments concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer has been given by successive Under Secretaries of State for Air for the last 10 years, and cannot we really have some finality on the subject?

Mr. MONTAGUE: All that I can say in answer to that question is, that although the hon. and gallant Member says the same answer has been given for the last 10 years, it is in any case the correct answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROADS (SURFACE TEEATMENT).

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the number of road accidents recently reported, he will take steps to secure that all slippery roads shall be treated with an effective anti-skid surfacing?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My divisional engineers report that the method of surface treatment suggested in the circular issued by my Department to highway authorities in March, 1929, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, is being generally followed and that there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of accidents attributable to slippery road surfaces.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are practically no slippery roads in Scotland, because we know how to make roads?

Mr. WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many slippery Scotsmen?

YORK-SCARBOKOUGH ROAD.

Mr. LATHAM: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to secure the enlargement and improvement of the York-Scarborough road?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The responsibility for the initiation and execution of schemes for the widening and improvement of the York-Scarborough road rests with the North Riding and East Riding County Councils, who are the highway authorities concerned. I am prepared to consider applications by the county councils for grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of such schemes.

Mr. LATHAM: Cannot the Minister of Transport call a conference between the East Riding and the North Riding county council authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: If either or both of the county councils are going to do the work, I shall be glad to bring them together. In the meantime, the hon. Member can perform a useful service by making representations to his friends on the county council.

ADDITIONAL OMNIBUS ROUTE, BRIGHTON.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he or the south-eastern area Traffic Commissioners will receive representations from independent ratepayers who are opposed to the proposed additional omnibus route from Hove Street, Hove, to Brighton Station, which traverses already congested sections of roadway?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The licensing of road passenger services is a matter for the Traffic Commissioners concerned who in exercising their discretion are required to have regard to various matters including any representations which may be made to them by any local authority in whose area the proposed route, or any part of it, lies. Any question as to the acceptance by them of representations from independent ratepayers is for the Commissioners to decide. My jurisdiction in these matters only arises in the event of an appeal being lodged under the provisions of Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I would point out that an appeal against the grant of a road service licence is restricted to a local authority which, or a person providing transport facilities who, has opposed the grant of that licence.

GUILDFORD-GODALMING BY-PASS.

Sir C. RAWSON: 39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Transport, (1) whether the
new Hog's Back by-pass road will be constructed of all British materials; and of what the surface will consist;
(2) whether he will consider in the surfacing of the new Hog's Back by-pass different systems on the six sections to test durability and non-slipperiness, including a section of specially dressed British setts?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I assume that the questions refer to the Guildford-Godalming By-Pass Road. This road is not considered suitable for the construction of experimental sections of surfacing, as they would have to be imposed on the concrete running surface which forms an integral part of the approved scheme. With the exception of a small quantity of bitumen for the footways, which is being obtained from Empire sources, all the materials used for the construction of this road will be of British origin.

ERITH-BEXLEY HEATH ROAD.

Mr. MILLS: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received a report upon the state of the road between Erith and Bexley Heath; and whether, in view of the rapid development of the area and increasing danger to pedestrians coming from the railway, he will urge the Erith Urban District Council to commence paving and widening?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have nothing to add to the information given to my hon. Friend on the 18th May in reply to a similar question.

COLYERS LANE, CRAYFORD.

Mr. MILLS: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport the date upon which the Cray-ford Urban District Council, Kent, were notified of departmental sanction for moneys in aid of the proposed widening of Colyers Lane, connecting Slades Green with Northumberland Heath; and whether, in view of the dangerous turns on this hill and of the daily journeys of school children to and from school, he will urge a beginning of this scheme?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This scheme was approved for a grant on the 29th August last, and the necessary loan was sanctioned on 8th September. The commencement of the scheme was delayed owing to difficulty in securing the land. It is, however, understood that the
negotiations have been completed, that work on the sewer was started on 11th May, and that the road works were commenced a few weeks later.

DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.

Mr. MILLS: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport the present development of the negotiations regarding the proposed Dartford tunnel; and whether engineering firms with former experience of tunnel work of this character will be consulted before the final specification as to compressed-air poundage will be signed, or whether some elasticity will be allowed in view of the depth and size of the job?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The state of the negotiations remains as indicated in the reply made on my behalf to my hon. Friend's question on the 20th instant. I do not think it necessary to call in other advisers beyond the consulting engineers and the experts already associated with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTEY (INQUIRY).

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the report of the committee which is inquiring into the condition of the fishing industry may be expected?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I understand that the report is almost completed and the Prime Minister hopes to receive it in the early autumn.

Major WOOD: Does that mean early September, October, or November?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It means in early autumn.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more explicitly what is meant?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I believe that autumn begins on the 30th September, so that I suppose early autumn would be very soon after the 30th September.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said in this House way
back on the 2nd February last that the Committee were then considering their draft report?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, well they have evidently taken a long time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Mr. STRAUSS: 46.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he intends to take any action in connection with the ventilation of the House before the winter session, in view of the representations that have been made to him by Members of all parties and particularly by the medical Members of the House?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): In view of the representations which have been made, I propose to call for a joint report from the Government Chemist and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the air and general ventilation conditions throughout the whole of the House of Commons. The question of the remedial measures, if any, to be adopted will have to be considered in the light of the report when received.

Mr. STRAUSS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these investigations will be made during the Recess or will he wait until the House has re-assembled and conditions are more normal?

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that it would he useless to make any investigation when the House is in recess. Whatever investigations are made, they must be made when the House is sitting.

Mr. MILLS: Will my right hon. Friend consider having these experts handy so that they may come in about 2 a.m. on an all-night sitting?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the representations which have been made on the question by the medical Members of the House, and, in view of the uncomfortable nature of the benches, will the right hon. Gentleman call in some osteopaths?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no faith in experts.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (FACILITIES, ROSS-SHIRE).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 48.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can now say whether it is proposed to grant the telephone and postal facilities desired by the community of Coigach and Achiltibuie, Ross-shire?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): The provision of telephone call office facilities at Achiltibuie to serve the Coigach district would involve heavy annual costs, much in excess of the estimated receipts; and a substantial guarantee would be required. I am making further inquiries into the possibility of establishing a telephone exchange. I will write to the hon. Member shortly as regards postal facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. MARCUS: 49.
asked the Minister of Health if he will take an early opportunity of amending the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, so as to include those widows whose husbands died prior to the year 1924 and who are now deprived of pensions in the event of their youngest child attaining the age of 16?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, provides pensions at the age of 55 for widows of men who died before 4th January, 1926. A widow who is in receipt of a pension under the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, so long as she has a child under the age of 16 continues to draw her pension without interruption if she is 55 when the youngest child attains 16; if she is then under 55 pension again becomes payable to her when she reaches that age. My right hon. Friend is afraid that it is not possible to provide in the latter case for payment of pension without interruption after the youngest child attains 16.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (MASARWA TRIBE).

Mr. HORRABIN: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government has come to any decision as to an inquiry into the conditions of the
Masarwa tribe of Bechuanaland; what is the name of the commissioner appointed; and what are the terms of reference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. Mr. E. S. B. Tagart, C.B.E., formerly Secretary for Native Affairs, Northern Rhodesia, has been appointed by the High Commissioner for South Africa to conduct an inquiry into the position of the Masarwa in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and the inquiry is now in progress. I have not yet received from the High Commissioner the text of the terms of reference.

Mr. HORRABIN: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the name of Mr. W. Ballinger was considered for this commission, and, if so, what is the reason that he was not appointed?

Mr. THOMAS: If he was considered, it is most undesirable to give any reason. A number of applicants were considered for the position, but it would be very undesirable to mention their names. I do not oven remember the name mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW SOUTH WALKS (CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION).

Mr. MANDER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what communications have recently passed between himself and the Government of New South Wales with regard to the constitutional position in that State; and whether he is prepared to make a statement with regard thereto?

Mr. THOMAS: Certain representations regarding the position in New South Wales have been made to me by the Agent-General for New South Wales on the instructions of his Government. The matter is still under my consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. MORLEY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many persons have been assisted to migrate under the provisions of the Empire Settlement Act during the years 1929, 1930 and 1931?

Mr. THOMAS: The number of persons assisted to migrate under the
Empire Settlement Act during 1929, 1930 and the first six months of 1931 was 34,476, 11,506 and 1,582 respectively. In addition 37,274, 17,589 and 2,454 persons respectively were assisted under the special £10 rate to migrate to Canada in the same periods.

Mr. MORLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how much of the £3,000,000 which was originally hypothecated for this purpose has been expended?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. MATTERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent these settlers have had to be assisted to return to this country?

Mr. THOMAS: We are not responsible for the return, but it is true that large numbers have been returned.

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYEK: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the sum of £1,500, which has been allocated for the expenses of the Royal Commission which is inquiring into settlers' grievances in Australia, has yet been expended?

Mr. THOMAS: I have been asked to answer this question. The sum of £750 was provided in the Oversea Settlement Vote for 1930 towards the cost of the Victoria Royal Commission of which approximately £259 was expended up to 31st March, 1931. The balance of £491 reverted to the Exchequer. An additional sum of £750 was provided in the Estimates for 1931, of which approximately £59 has been expended up to the present date.

Sir G. BOWYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this inquiry does go on until all the reasonable grievances have been heard?

Mr. THOMAS: We cannot instruct the Dominions on a matter of this kind, but the representations we have made would tend to show that we want the thing thoroughly examined.

Captain WATERHOUSE: In view of the fact that His Majesty's Government invariably refuse to be guided by the reports of Royal Commissions, does the right hon. Gentleman think this is any good?

Mr. THOMAS: That is rather an undesirable statement in view of the number of folks who are so vitally affected. The hon. and gallant Member is not helping his hon. Friend by that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.

Commander BELLAIRS: 54
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) in view of the fact that Russian Oil Products, Limited, the Central Association of Flax Growers, Limited, Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance. Company, Limited, Centrosoyos, Limited, Anglo-Soviet Shipping Company, Limited, the Moscow Narodny Bank, Limited, and the White Sea Timber Trust, Limited, have no diplomatic immunity, whether it is intended to prosecute them for not having complied with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, Section 2;
(2) in view of the fact that Section 7, Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, imposes a fine of five pounds on every partner of the firm for every day of default in registration of names and particulars, whether he can state what is the total fine that the directors of the companies acting as general agents for Soviet Russia have made themselves liable for through failure to comply with the Act of Parliament in regard to registration;
(3) how many of the companies acting as general agents for Soviet Russia have failed to comply with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, Section 2; whether the matter has been the subject of any correspondence; and, if so, on what date?

Mr. GILLETT: Communications received from the companies in question in reply to letters addressed to them on 17th July contend that the nature of the business which they carry on does not bring them within Section 2 of the Act. The validity of this contention is being investigated.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I take it that the Board of Trade have not taken any decision in their judicial capacity which will prevent the companies being prosecuted in a court of law?

Mr. GILLETT: I understand that the Board of Trade are taking legal advice to find out what the position is.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I have an assurance before the House meets again that the Board of Trade, having certain legal rights, will not exempt these companies from any fines to which they are liable, so that proceedings can be taken in a court of law?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister cannot answer that question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Gentleman take evidence from other people and not from the companies?

Mr. GILLETT: The matter will be fully considered.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that this has been going on for 10 years—

Commander BELLAIRS: It will be a scandal if you let them off.

Mr. TAYLOR: —and will the hon. Gentleman put the commercial interests of the country before any question of prosecution?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Have not these companies competent legal advisers?

Mr. GILLETT: I have no information on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor).

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOLMASTER'S EXTENDED SERVICE, STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. McSHANE: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education on what grounds he has recently sanctioned, in the case of the Staffordshire education committee, the retention of the services of a schoolmaster beyond 65 years of age?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The Board have recently granted the headmaster of the mixed department of the Shelfield Council School continued recognition beyond the age of 65 pending the reorganisation of the schools in the area. It is proposed that the mixed department shall be discontinued next year, and the school will then be used for junior children only. The headmaster is especially fitted to continue
in his post, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to disagree with the view of the local education authority that it would be undesirable to make a change of head teacher for so short a period.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COAL MINES ACT.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines if ho can make a statement as to the results so far achieved under the operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I would refer the hon. Member to the report on the working of schemes under Part I of the Act recently published (Cmd. 3905), and to my statement in Monday night's Debate.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, in view of recent developments, he adheres to the statement he made at Morpeth a fortnight ago that any failure in the Coal Mines Act was due to the deep-rooted, stupid, mid-Victorian, barbarian, grotesque conception of the Act by the coal-owners— [Interruption.]

WAGES.

Mr. COCKS: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average annual earnings of the mine workers in Great Britain in 1930?

Mr. SHINWELL: The average cash earnings of all workers employed in the coal mines in Great Britain during the year 1930 was £113 18s. 2d. In addition, there were allowances in kind, varying in annual value from about 12s. in Scotland, Lancashire and Cheshire, and North Staffordshire, to about £14 in Northumberland and Durham, with an average over the whole country of £4 17s. 4d.

Mr. COCKS: Is that not a disgracefully low rate of wages for a basic industry of this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAE-BARELL.

Mr. BRACKEN: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for India what reasons Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Dar, the deputy commissioner at Rae-Bareli, in the United Provinces, has relinquished that employment?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): As I promised the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking), in reply to a similar question on the 16th July, I have sent an inquiry to the Government of India about this matter. As soon as I receive a reply I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. BRACKEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman obtain an answer before the House adjourns, because the matter is of great public importance; can he not, by telegram, get the information before the House rises?

Mr. BENN: I do not think that in a matter of this detail which concerns a Provincial Government it is necessary to do more than I have done.

MR. NEHEU AND MR. GANDHI (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. BRACKEN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the results of the negotiations between the Viceroy and Mr. Nehru, who recenly advocated the establishment of a peasants' republic in India; and whether the Government was previously informed that the interview was about to take place?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has anything to report to the House in connection with the recent conversations at Simla between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi?

Mr. BENN: I have no statement to make regarding these conversations, which were of an informal nature and dealt with matters arising out of the agreement.

Mr. BRACKEN: If the right hon. Gentleman has no previous knowledge, has he protested against an honour being conferred upon one who has advocated the expulsion of the King Emperor from India—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about that in the question on the Paper.

ASSOCIATION FOR FREEDOM'S BATTLE.

Mr. HACKING: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the threat of bloodshed and incendiarism by the Association for Freedom's Battle to merchants in the
Bagerhat district who continue dealing in foreign cloth; and, in view of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement, will he take immediate steps to see that this organisation is disbanded?

Mr. BENN: I have seen a statement in the Press and am asking for a report from the Government of India.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know what the report is?

Mr. BENN: Certainly, I will communicate privately with the right hon. Gentleman if the House is not sitting.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORK SCHEMES.

Sir G. BOWYER: 70.
asked the Lord Privy Seal for how many of the unemployed work has been provided by legislation passed by the Government since June, 1929; at what cost to the taxpayer; and under what Acts of Parliament?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. T. Johnston): It is estimated that the employment value of the schemes approved under legislation passed by the Government since June, 1929, specifically for the relief of unemployment is equivalent to the provision of work for one year for 450,000 persons. Of some 250,000 persons estimated at present to be employed, directly and indirectly, on schemes for the relief of unemployment, it is estimated that about 150,000 persons are employed in connection with schemes under the legislation referred to, namely, the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, and the Colonial Development Act, 1929. The total cost of these schemes is estimated at about £120 millions and the present value of the Exchequer grants in aid of these schemes is about £43 millions. These figures of course do not include expenditure under housing legislation, or such expenditure as that on classified roads assisted by grants from the Road Fund of ordinary expenditure by the Central Electricity Board.

Captain CROOKS HANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these people are employed in the industries of attracting tourists or of grand opera, which so much interest the Government?

TRADE DISPUTES.

Mr. MARCUS: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in order to safeguard employés against disqualification from benefit in the event of a trade dispute, she will take steps to re-enact Section 4 (1) of the. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924, which was repealed by the late Government in 1027, and which protected employés deprived of work through a stoppage due to an employer or a group of employers acting in contravention of existing agreements?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): No, Sir.

LANUR ECLAMATION SCHEME, DURHAM.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 85.
(for Mr. TILLETT) asked the Minister of Labour if, as a result of the application by the Tees Conservancy Commission for a grant in aid of development work on the River Tees, a grant has been sanctioned; and will she state the amount of the grant and the date upon which it was paid?

Mr. LAWSON: Grant from Exchequer Funds was approved on the recommendation of the Unemployment Grants Committee in January, 1930, in respect of a scheme estimated to cost £300,856 for the reclamation of land on the Durham bank of the river, and for the improvement of the channel. The capitalised value of the grant, which is payable over a period not exceeding 15 years, is approximately £90,000.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Has there been any extension of the scheme which was put into operation in June of last year?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware of any extension.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALDEN GREEN (NEW ROAD).

Mr. EDE: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the road proposed to be constructed across Maiden Green, Surrey, when part of that Metropolitan common is exchanged by Merton College, Oxford, for other land, is to be a private or public road; if the proposed road is shown in a town-planning scheme; if the urban district council of the Maidens and Coombe has been consulted in the matter; and where a plan of the whole of the land
involved in these transactions, and showing how each part is proposed to be treated, can be seen?

Mr. BEN SMITH (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the proposed road across Maiden Green is intended to be a public road and is shown in the draft town-planning scheme prepared by the Maidens and Coombe Urban District Council which has recently been deposited in the locality for public inspection, but has not yet been submitted to the Ministry of Health for approval. The map relating to the scheme, and a map showing the land proposed to be added to Maiden Green in lieu of the portion of the green to be taken for the road, can be seen at the offices of the district council.

Oral Answers to Questions — DITTON AND ESHER COMMONS.

Mr. EDE: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the application made to him by the urban district council of Esher and the Dittons, Surrey, to enclose 8,170 square feet of Ditton Common will, if granted, restrict or destroy the right of access of the public to this Metropolitan common; if it is proposed to give any land in lieu of the land so enclosed; what is the purpose for which it is proposed to use the land after enclosure; and will he decline to sanction any enclosure unless an area at least equivalent to that enclosed is added to the common?

Mr. BEN SMITH: No application such as that referred to by my hon. Friend has reached my right hon. Friend's Department, and until an application is made, and all parties concerned have had an opportunity of submitting their views, it is impossible to state what effect the proposed appropriation of common land will have on the right of public access, or whether the application will be granted, or refused, or, if granted, whether any conditions will be imposed.

Mr. EDE: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to refer to the advertisement columns of the local Press, where it is advertised that this is being submitted to him for approval?

Mr. SMITH: I will willingly see that that is communicated to my right hon. Friend, but I would point out that the district council published on 25th July notice of their intention to apply for his consent to the purchase of land for highway improvements, though that application has not yet reached the Department.

Mr. EDE: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the erection of buildings on part of Esher Common, near West End, Esher, and to the alteration of levels on the surface of the common; if his consent has been sought and given under the Law of Property Act, 1925; and what steps he proposes to take to have the common restored to its original condition?

Mr. SMITH: The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the negative. As regards the last part, my right hon. Friend has no power himself to intervene, but if the facts are as stated and access to the common is prevented or impeded by the works in question, any person interested in the common may apply to the county court to make an order for the removal of the works and for the restoration of the land to the condition in which it was before the work was undertaken.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BONUS (PENSIONS).

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to apply the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service with regard to the bonus to Civil Service pensioners as well as those still employed?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The matter is under consideration.

OFFICES, EDINBURGH.

Mr. MARCUS: 47.
(for Mr. SINKINSON) asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the number of Government offices in Edinburgh the owners and rental of the premises: and the owners and feu duties of the site?

Mr. LANSBURY: The number of premises held by this Department for
Government offices in Edinburgh is 58, of which 45 are leased from 43 owners at rents totalling £13,350 per annum. The remaining 13 premises are Crown property, on six of which £63 per annum is paid to five parties in respect of feu duty.
The figures are exclusive of offices held by the Fighting Services, in addition to Post Offices which are, in all cases, held by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. MATHERS: Does not this information point to the desirability of erecting Government offices in Edinburgh, and will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prepare for the time when money will be available for these offices to be erected?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA (DUTY).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the inferior quality of the various teas sold since the abolition of the tea duty, which were not imported nor on sale prior thereto as they could not carry duty; and whether, as a means towards the raising of the additional revenue required for the current year, he will reimpose the said duty?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am aware that there has been a fall of prices in the tea market, but I cannot say how far this may be attributable to inferior qualities of tea. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is hardly possible to get any decent tea in the market? [Interruption.] It is mostly rubbish.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he was consulted before the publication of the recent notice circulated in the Irish Free State demanding that the vouchers of Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners should now bear a 2d. stamp; and whether, seeing that under the
Finance Act all such pensions are free of stamp duty and that Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are exempt, he can confer with the Irish Free State Government with a view to a remittance of this duty, which will mean an impost of 2s. a year on Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners in the Irish Free State?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I have no information regarding the notice referred to. Questions relating to stamp duty on payments made in the Irish Free State are within the domestic Jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government in that area, and I cannot intervene.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman not protect the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in respect of their contractual rights? Can he not make representations without intervening?

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE PENSIONERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. MORLEY: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider introducing legislation with a view to preventing Government pensioners with a pension of more than £3 a week taking civil employment to the exclusion and detriment of the existing unemployed?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot see my way to adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMAS (WAGES AND HOURS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the inquiry into the wages and hours at cinemas has now been completed; and, if so, what action she proposes to take?

Mr. LAWSON: This inquiry is not yet completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FOREST WORKERS' HOLDINGS.

Major WOOD: 59.
(for Mr. SCOTT) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the
Forestry Commissioners, how many smallholdings have been established in Scotland to date on land acquired by the Commissioners; the total acreage of such holdings and the average acreage and rental of the holdings; whether the rents of the holdings have been fixed by the Scottish Land Court and the holders registered as landholders or statutory small tenants; and whether, if not, he will state the reason why this has not been done and the tenure on which the holders occupy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Forestry Commissioners have established 235 forest workers' holdings in Scotland to date on land acquired by them, the total acreage of such holdings being 1,081 and the average acreage 4½ and rental £11. The rents of the holdings have not been fixed by the court and the holders are not registered, the reason being that the tenancies are subject to service and employment. They continue by tacit relocation from month to month and may be terminated by either party on a month's notice.

AFFORESTATION.

Major WOOD: 60.
(for Mr. SCOTT) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the average rate at which land for afforestation purposes has been acquired in Scotland during the past year; whether the feuing rate of land previously used as grazing land is fixed at the actual market value as for grazing purposes; and, if more than such value has been paid, whether he will state the grounds on which such value has been exceeded?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The Forestry Commissioners during the past year acquired land for afforestation purposes in Scotland at the average rate of approximately £2 10s. per plantable acre. Feus are fixed by negotiation. In the case of grazing land the Commissioners keep carefully in view the market value for grazing purposes and do not pay greater prices unless some well-defined advantage is thereby secured.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINES.

Mr. SINKINSON: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines the output of tin from the tin mines of Great Britain for the years 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. SHINWELL: The total output of dressed tin ore (i.e., black tin) in Great Britain in 1930 was 4,146 tons, containing, on the average, 60 per cent. of metal. The corresponding figures for 1929 were 5,640 tons and 58 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Economy Report has yet been signed; and, if so, when it will be made public?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The report was signed on the 24th instant. I anticipate that it will be in the hands of Members before the House rises, but I cannot give an absolute assurance.

Mr. BRACKEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman still remain of the opinion that he could have written the report in advance?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrange that the report should be in the hands of Members of the House before the Debate on the Appropriation Bill finishes?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not possible. I only received the signed report at the end of last week, and I gave instructions at once for the printing to be put in hand, and that it must be carried out with the utmost expedition. I hope it will be available to hon. Members on Friday, as I am very anxious that they should have some cheerful reading to take away with them.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the previous statement just quoted, that the right hon. Gentleman could have written the report in advance, may I assume that the Government are already in agreement with its conclusions?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member may assume, as he usually does, whatever he thinks fit.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if
I assume what he says to be true, I should be inaccurate?

Mr. WISE: May we assume that no action will be taken on points of policy arising out of this report until the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No.

Mr. WISE: In the opinion—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. May I be permitted to ask, in the interests of the whole of the Members of this House, a question of great public importance, whether it would not be possible for some advance copies to be made available? They need not be bound or made up.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Having regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks yesterday about courtesy, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's replies are not lacking in courtesy?

Mr. SMITHERS: May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House, what business he proposes to take to-night; and if he can tell us what the business will be on the reassembling of Parliament?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is proposed to take to-night, in addition to the Report of Supply and Ways and Means, the Bethlem Hospital (Amendment) Bill, Committee stage; the Gas and Electricity Orders on the Paper, and any Message that may be received from another place this afternoon in connection with the Agricultural Marketing Bill.
The business on the resumption of the House in October will be as follows:
Tuesday, 20th October: Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Wednesday, 21st October: Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, Consideration of Lords Amendments; Public Works Loans Bill, Committee stage; Report stage of the Money Resolution for
the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Bill [Lords].
Thursday and Friday, 22nd and 23rd October: Town and Country Planning Bill, further stages.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give any opportunity for discussing the Economy Bill?

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House); and that, if the first three Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply of the 28th July shall have been agreed to before Ten of the clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten of the clock, under paragraph 8 of Standing Order No. 15."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 105.

Division No. 462.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Montague, Frederick


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morley, Ralph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Arnott, John
Herriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muff, G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hoffman, P. C.
Murnin, Hugh


Barnes, Alfred John
Holline, A.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Naylor, T. E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Horrabin, J. F.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Benson, G.
Isaacs, George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid


Brooke, W.
Jones, Llewellyn., F.
Palmer, E. T.


Brothers, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Buchanan, G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pole, Major D. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Buxton, C. R. (York W. R. Elland)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Price, M. P.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Knight, Holford
Richards, R.


Charleton, H C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chater, Daniel
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Church, Major A. G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rowson, Guy


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cowan, D. M.
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Leonard, W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwan)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan. David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Longbottom, A. W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longden, F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dukes, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Duncan, Charles
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


Elmley, Viscount
McElwee, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Simmons, C. J.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Glassey, A. E.
McShane, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, F.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Lees-. Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gray, Mliner
March, S.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Marcus, M.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.
Strauss, G. R.


Half, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred
Sullivan, J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Middleton, G.
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mills, J. E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Thurtle, Ernest
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Toole, Joseph
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tout, W. J.
Westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loushb'gh)


Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wise, E. F.


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Watkins, F. C.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gower, Sir Robert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thompson, Luke


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christle, J. A.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Long. Major Hon. Erie
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marjoribanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.



Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sir Frederick Thomson and




Captain Margesson.


First Resolution read a Second time.

OIL POLLUTION.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the equipment of oil carrying ships with separators for freeing from oil the liquid discharged therefrom and generally to make provision against the pollution of the seas by oil.
I am asking leave to introduce this Bill in response to a great and growing demand in different parts of the country, not only from private individuals, but from municipal councils and from harbour authorities. The object of the Bill is to make compulsory the equipment of British ships within the meaning of the Act with a separator which will have the effect of separating, from the liquid discharged from the ship, the fuel oil which, otherwise, is mixed up with the water. The effect of the separator is not merely to separate the oil from the water, but to enable the oil to be retained
in the ship, so that, instead of being lost overboard, as otherwise it would be, it can be used, and thus save an enormous amount of waste.
There are many kinds of separators, but the fundamental function of them all is the separation of water from oil. I have here two specimens which will serve to illustrate the effect to the House. The one consists of fuel oil and water mixed together, before going through the separator, and the other of the water extracted from the mixture as the result of its going through the separator. From these specimens hon. Members will be able to appreciate what it will mean to the state of the ocean over the whole world if these separators are fitted in ships. At the present time, as we have heard to-day from the First Lord of the Admiralty, oil separators are fitted in certain ships of His Majesty's Navy, and they are also
fitted in tankers. They are fitted in most of the ships of the Cunard Line, the Elder Dempster Line, the Bibby Line and the Union-Castle Line. I have received letters from all of these shipping companies, and every one of them says that the separators are entirely satisfactory, that the cost of their upkeep is practically nil, and that there is an enormous saving in fuel. The Bibby Line say that the chief offenders are tankers, which empty out their large tanks periodically, and Government and Admiralty vessels, which, not being subject to economic results, do not take the steps which those working for profit do.
4.0 p.m.
The point with regard to the separator is that, once fitted, it requires little or no attention—it works by itself. The cost of its upkeep is practically nil, and another advantage is that in course of time it practically pays for itself out of the oil it saves. That is the experience of these big shipping lines which have adopted it so far. The tonnage of oil-driven ships has increased from 1,500,000 tons in 1914 to 27,850,000 tons in 1930, and it is estimated that 2,000,000 gallons of this crude oil are discharged out of the ships into the sea every day. That, of course, is an estimate; I cannot guarantee the exact amount to half a pint; but that is the estimate that has been made. The result of this discharge of oil is four-fold. It fouls the beaches and detracts from the amenities of seaside places. It wanders about on the surface of the sea in harbours, and has caught fire there. It has drifted into coveys of sea-birds, which have been destroyed owing to the effect on their bills, eyes and feathers, rendering them unable to fly, eat or see, and they have drifted ashore in thousands on all parts of our coasts. It has a very deleterious effect on the fishing industry of this country, and on the fishes' eggs and breeding grounds on the surface of the water and on the bed of the ocean. If I may mention ray own constituency—I do not know why one should not mention one's own constituency—apart from various other agencies in the town, the officials of the Brighton Aquarium last year treated over 100 birds, and only three were able to recover. In Folkestone, in April of this year, 77 sea birds were washed
ashore in a helpless condition. Twenty-six were already dead, and the remainder were so disabled, owing to their beaks and their eyes being clogged, that they had to be destroyed. Then we had the evidence of Mr. Hardy, of the British Naturalists' Association, who saw off the Hampshire coast a collection of 50 birds in a small patch of water, helpless, dying from starvation, and unable to eat any of the fish that was offered to them. Those are a few examples of what is happening at the present time.
The Bill that was passed in 1922, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, fixed a limit of three miles from the coast where this oil should not be discharged. In 1926, the International Conference on Oil Pollution at Washington extended that distance to anything from 50 to 150 miles, according to coast-line. I say it is perfectly useless to have any limit, because in due course, whether that limit be 60 or 500 miles, the oil will come into shore, and the only remedy is to prevent the pollution of the sea altogether. The big shipping lines I have mentioned set an excellent example to the smaller lines, and if all fitted these separators, we should get rid of the difficulty altogether. There may be some objection raised on account of the space taken away from the ship by the installation of the separator. That is met in the Bill, because the amount of space involved would be deducted from the tonnage, and if there were any dispute the Board of Trade would arbitrate in the matter.
The cost would be comparatively small in the case of boats like the Brixham class of trawler, namely, £10 or £15, in mass production. For a liner of 10,000 tons, the cost would be between £230 and £250, and, as I said before, a great deal of initial cost is met by the amount of fuel saving, while the upkeep is trivial. In this country in the past we have been legislating day in and day out, and year in and year out, to improve hygienic conditions upon the land, and all that I am asking by this Bill is that we should do the same thing on the sea. We have reduced our Navy very materially, but we are still the largest maritime Power in the world, and although Britannia may not rule the waves, there is no reason why she should not keep them clean, and set an example
to other countries. If we set that example to other countries by passing legislation, we may at Geneva get other nations of the world to follow our example.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Cooper Rawson, Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Captain Peter Macdonald, Mr. Mander, Mr. Philip Oliver, and Mr. Womersley.

OIL POLLUTION BILL,

"to provide for the equipment of oil carrying ships with separators for freeing from oil the liquid discharged therefrom and generally to make provision against the pollution of the seas by oil," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 22nd October, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

SHOPS.

Mr. HOFFMAN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Section five of the Shops Act, 1913, by fixing an earlier hour at which shops may be closed by a closing order.
I am not sure whether this does not create a record in the size of Bills. It is so small that it might be called "The One Word Bill," for all that it proposes to do is to alter one word in the Shops Act, 1912. The late Lord Avebury managed to get through the House, in 1904, a Measure which was then called the Permissive Closing Bill. It gave power to local authorities to make closing orders not earlier than seven o'clock, provided that two-thirds of the shopkeepers, or, indeed, of any trade in any district were in favour of it. The Act of 1904 was embodied in the consolidating legislation of 1912, and the object of this Measure is to alter the word "seven" to "six" in Section 5. That will give power to the local authorities to make closing orders not earlier than six o'clock instead of seven o'clock, and the conditions would be exactly the same as they have been since 1904. In recent years there has been a tendency for shops in certain towns to close voluntarily a lot earlier. I could give a very long list of towns where six o'clock closing either for all shops or for some shops has been for a long time voluntarily in operation; but recent events are tending to cheek that voluntary movement.
It may be urged that a Select Committee has been appointed by this House to go into the question of shop hours. As I understand the position, that Select Committee has to deal with hours and conditions of employment, and does not touch the question of closing. That is the reason why I am asking this House for leave to bring in this Bill. I have heard people say that the shopkeeper should have the liberty to keep his shop open as long as he likes. The answer to that is that this House has passed legislation compelling all, or nearly all, shops to close at eight o'clock, and it has, as I have said, ever since 1904 allowed permissive local orders to be made. I would urge that liberty can only be secured when licence is curbed, and we ought never to mix up the words "liberty" and "licence." For example, recently a very large store in the West End of London has decided to keep open its premises next September until seven o'clock at night. The result of that has been already quite disastrous, We have made inquiries among other shops in the West End of London, and while quite a number have said that it is not their intention to keep open their shops later, there are others who say that they will wait and see what happens.
I would point out to the House that, really, there is no general advantage in shops keeping open late if they all keep open late. It is only when a trader keeps his shop open while others are closed that he has the advantage. Immediately the others keep open as late as he does, then all the advantage that he formerly had is gone. The result is that the employers and employés are working longer hours, overhead charges, especially in reference to lighting, are sent up, and the effects are bad and by no means good. May I give one experience I had just before I came to this House? I had been to a Midland town to open a branch of my organisation, and there they were closing at six o'clock at night. When I went round to one branch manager and asked him whether he would come along to the meeting that night to elect officers, he said, "I am sorry. I cannot come to-night, because I am judging a tennis tournament." Another when asked to come, could not do so because he was secretary of the allotments association and was going to judge
the allotments. Another could not come because he was conducting a choir that night. It overjoyed me to know that those who were working in shops could at last enjoy the amenities of civilised life. If anyone had told me 15 years ago that on an ordinary week night shop assistants could be enjoying, after their shop was closed, tennis, cricket, attention to their allotments and so on, I should never have believed it possible. This House should encourage and not discourage a movement of that kind which is going to bring health and better life to large numbers of those who are employed in our shops. It is because this Bill, if passed, will tend to help forward that movement of very much earlier closing that I ask leave to introduce it.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Ede, Mr. James Wilson, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Wilfrid Whiteley.

SHOPS BILL,

"to amend section five of the Shops Act, 1912, by fixing an earlier hour at which shops may be closed by a closing order," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th October, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Swindon Corporation) Bill,

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Padstow Harbour) Bill,

Midlothian County Council (Calder) Water Order Confiimation Bill,

Isle of Man Loans Bill,

Adoption of Children (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Bill, with an Amendment.

Agricultural Marketing Bill,

Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abertillery and District Water District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board) Bill [Lords],

Grand Union Canal (Leicester Canals Purchase, etc.) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [28th July.]

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1931.

CLASS V.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,116,212, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc. Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."

CLASS III.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £298,434, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."

REVENUE DEPAHTMKNIS.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,763,080 (including a Supplementary Sum of £290,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."

CLASS I.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,320,904, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:



£


1. House of Lords Offices
25,799


2. House of Commons
244,864


3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Act
155,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
189,543


5. Privy Council Office
5,099


6. Privy Seal Office
3,223


7. Charity Commission
24,827

£


8.
Civil Service Commission
16,651


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
90,750


10.
Friendly Societies' Deficiency
6,076


11.
Government Actuary
22,389


12.
Government Chemist
42,894


13.
Government Hospitality
7,000


14.
The Mint
150,000


15.
National Debt Office
599


16.
National Savings Committee
55,876


17.
Public Record Office
25,386


18.
Public Works Loan Commission
90


19.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
46,902


20.
Royal Commissions, etc.
21,040


21.
Miscellaneous Expenses
926


22.
Secret Service
100,000


23.
Scottish Office
50,842


24.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
35,128




£1,320,904"

CLASS II.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,597,112, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:




£


1.
Foreign Office
118,943


2.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
574,644


3.
League of Nations
67,500


4.
Dominions Office
41,714


5.
Dominion Services
67,039


6.
Empire Marketing
459,000


7.
Oversea Settlement
164,750


8.
Colonial Office
100,180


10.
Colonial Development Fund, etc.
348,342


11.
India Office (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000)
153,000


12.
Imperial War Graves Commission
502,000




£2,597,112"

CLASS III.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,788,310, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:



£


2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
45,666


3. Police, England and Wales
5,429,129


4. Prisons, England and Wales
402,089


5. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales
107,153

£


6.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
90


7.
County Courts
90


8.
Land Registry
90


9.
Public Trustee
90


10.
Law Charges
105,638


11.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
7,560


Scotland.


12.
Police
489,958


13.
Prisons Department for Scotland
70,528


14.
Reformatory and Industrial Schools
35,968


15.
Scottish Land Court
5,270


16.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
43,387


17.
Register House, Edinburgh
90


Ireland.


18.
Northern Ireland Services
5,976


19.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
720


20.
Laud Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland
1,638,818



£7,788,310"

CLASS IV.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £35,947,348, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:




£


1.
Board of Education
29,862,377


2.
British Museum
81,471


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
58,771


4.
Imperial War Museum
7,959


5.
London Museum
4,607


6.
National Gallery
16,430


7.
National Portrait Gallery
5,388


8.
Wallace Collection
6,835


9.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
135,684


10.
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
930,000


Scotland.


11.
Public Education
4,832,026


12.
National Galleries
4,999


13.
National Library
801




£35,947,348"

CLASS V.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £60,052,876, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure n respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

£


1a.
Grant in respect of Employment Schemes (Necessitous Areas), England and Wales
5,000


2.
Board of Control
84,620


3.
Registrar - General's Office
88,948


4.
National Insurance, Audit Department
108,650


5.
Friendly Societies Registry
30,602


6.
Old Age Pensions
24,234,000


7.
Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions
7,000,000


8.
Ministry of Labour
24,866,000


9.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
2,000,000


Scotland.


10.
Department of Health
1,607,203


11.
General Board of Control
10,929


12.
Registrar - General's Office
16,874


13.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes (Necessitous Areas)
50




£60,052,876"

CLASS VI.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,256,461, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

£


1
Board of Trade
100,115


2.
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade
90


3.
Mercantile Marine Services
216,209


4.
Department of Overseas Trade
280,507


5.
Export Credits
90


7.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
21,214


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
1,345,152


9.
Beet Sugar, Subsidy, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £225,000)
2,225,000


10.
Surveys of Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £29,700)
103,870


11.
Forestry Commission
595,000


13.
Development Fund
300,000


14.
Development Grants
350,000


15.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
271,004


16.
State Management Districts
90

Scotland.



£


17. Department of Agriculture
397,313


18. Fishery Board
49,807



£6,256,461"

CLASS VII.

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,477,889, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:




£


3.
Housing Estates
590


5.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
78,650


6.
Osborne
10,930


7.
Office of Works and Public Buildings
382,260


8.
Public Buildings, Great Britain
818,250


9.
Public Buildings, Overseas
167,360


10.
Royal Palaces
58,150


11.
Revenue Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £78,000)
872,900


13.
Rates on Government Property
1,027,167


14.
Stationery and Printing
976,982


15.
Peterhead Harbour
22,000


16.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
62,650




£4,477,889 "

CLASS VIII.

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,345,151, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:



£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
222,488


2. Ministry of Pensions
31,039,000


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
170,680


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
912,983



£32,345,151"

CLASS IX.

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £777, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the services
included in Class IX of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1. Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), Shipping Liquidation, etc.
490


2. Australian Zinc Concentrates
287



£777"

CLASS X.

13. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,056,287, be granted to His' Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class X of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
24,260,000


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
2,796,287



£27,056,287"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1931.

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £37,277,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—



£


1. Customs and Excise
3,045,500


3. Post Office
34,232,000



£37,277,500"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1931.

15. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,229,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—




£


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
400,500


4.
Fleet Air Arm
1,126,000


5.
Educational Services
232,000


6.
Scientific Services
482,500


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
389,700


8.
Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel
6,427,000



Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Matériel
4,683,870



Sec. 3 Shipbuilding. Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work
1,456,200

£


9.
Naval Armaments
3,433,500


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
661,230


12.
Admiralty Office
1,141,200


13.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers
3,127,500


14.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
4,650,400


15.
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities
1,017,700




£32,229,300"

ARMT ESTIMATES, 1931.

16. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,161,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:




£


2.
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
5,543,000


3.
Medical Services
972,000


4.
Educational Establishments
850,000


5.
Quartering and Movements
1,394,000


6.
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts
4,338,000


7.
Clothing
1,111,000


8.
General Stores
1,355,000


9.
Warlike Stores
2,211,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
558,000


12.
War Office
829,000



Ordnance Factories
100




£19,161,100"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1931.

17. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,261,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:




£


2.
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport
1,721,000


5.
Medical Services
302,000


6.
Educational Services
484,000


7.
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
599,000


9.
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
245,000


10.
Air Ministry
656,000


11.
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
254,000




£4,261,000"

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I do not think there need be any apology for returning again, after a few weeks, to a consideration of the Estimates of the Ministry of Health. The many social services that are administered by the Department intimately concern the great majority of the people of the country and involve the expenditure of large sums of money of ratepayers and taxpayers alike. The most recent return of the cost of social services gives an approximate figure of some £400,000,000, and a very large portion of this amount is to be found in the Vote of the Ministry of Health, a considerable amount of which is expenditure devoted to Old Age Pensions, Widows' Pensions, Housing, National Insurance and matters of that kind. Certainly, in examining these Estimates and in scrutinising the balance sheet of the Department, one cannot disguise for a moment that the cost of ill-health, a great deal of which is preventible, is a very heavy sum which both the nation and industry has to pay, and I am certainly keeping that very important aspect of national health affairs well before mc. On the other hand, the Minister himself reminded the House only a very short time ago that even in this connection times are hard and extravagance in the social services often comes hack on the poorest in the community. Therefore, there is a great necessity for careful administration and prudent economy.
I desire to draw particular attention to certain grave and disturbing aspects of National Health Insurance, and particularly to the heavy sickness and disablement experience which has now prevailed for a considerable period. In fact, to quote one of the statements authorised by the Minister of Health, there has been in recent years a rise in these two particular connections so continuous in its operation and of such magnitude as to occasion grave concern among all engaged in the administration of these benefits. This matter is not only of national importance, but is giving considerable anxiety to the societies themselves and to all those who desire
to see national insurance maintained on a safe and stable basis. This National Health Insurance system is a contributory one, but any excess in claims which has to be dealt with calls for additional contributions from the State. This social system, in my opinion, is one which has proved of great worth and use to the nation. It will always be associated with the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was due to his initiation, courage and foresight that this great and beneficent system has become a permanent part of the social service of the country. The total amount paid out of these funds during the year of which we have the last particulars, including the Exchequer contribution from the Ministry of Health Vote, was some £35,000,000 and medical benefit cost some £8,700,000. Of that sum the insurance doctors received some £6,256,000 and nearly £2,000,000 was paid to insurance chemists for drugs and appliances.
There was paid in sickness benefit some £11,250,000, in disablement benefit some £5,350,000, and in maternity benefit another £1,440,000. Medical treatment and attendance has now been available to the insured people practically for 20 years. During that period no less a sum than £100,000,000 has been spent on it, and undoubtedly during that time, and perhaps as a consequence of it, in part at any rate, there has been a general improvement in the public health. The decline in the general mortality rate has been one of the most satisfactory features of the century. Medical science has progressed a very long way in recent years. Many diseases have been successfully grappled with, and a very great deal indeed has been attained by medical research. Yet, notwithstanding all this, very considerable expenditure of money and considerable effort on the part of social workers, the medical profession, nurses, approved society administrators and all those who have taken part in this great health movement, there has been a marked and striking increase in the claims of insured persons for sickness and disablement benefits and in the consequent expenditure on these benefits. This very alarming rise in the sickness and disablement benefit claims has been
going on, so far as I have been able to ascertain, since 1925 and, whilst it is true that there was some improvement in 1928 as compared with the high rate in 1927, this improvement was not maintained, and the position in 1929 was substantially the same as in 1927. Last year there was some improvement, though not a very considerable one, but when you remember that in 1929 there was a serious epidemic of influenza you cannot draw very much encouragement from the figures of 1930. Certainly, no one who has studied the matter would desire to say that the problem is by any means solved or that further immediate steps to deal with the matter are not very urgently needed.
There are three grave and arresting factors in the present situation. The first is the adverse experience which the approved societies have suffered, and the claim experience in respect of married women. In fact, the societies have been affected so seriously in this connection that the valuers have in some instances quite recently warned societies that, unless the conditions improve to a marked extent, the whole of the present surplus will be exhausted within a few years in providing ordinary benefit. A number of societies which specially cater for married women, having regard to the unfortunate experience they have sustained, will have to cancel their additional benefit schemes altogether—a very serious thing indeed. It is in fact already the experience of a number of societies that they have to cancel their additional benefit schemes altogether. The Government actuary in his report to the House a short time ago came, after a very patient examination, to the conclusion that the claims of the unmarried women had risen by no less than 60 per cent. so far as sickness benefit was concerned, and the claims of married women had actually risen by 106 per cent. and, as far as disablement benefit was concerned, Sir Alfred Watson said the claims of unmarried women had risen by 100 per cent. and the claims of married women had risen by no less than 159 per cent.—a very striking figure, at any rate from the point of view of those who originally made their calculations under the Act and especially as far as the finance upon which the scheme is based is concerned. That is one serious factor in the situation, and another and also very curious feature is this, that among males it is the younger insured
persons rather than the older whose burdens cast upon the funds of the various approved societies have increased in recent years. One would have expected, owing to sickness and advanced years, that exactly the opposite would have taken place.
The third factor, which is also serious and a very curious one, is illustrated in some figures which have been published by one of the largest of the approved societies in the country, is this, that the excessive claims, as far as a large proportion of insured persons are concerned, are more in the North of England than in the South, and it is a very difficult thing indeed to see why a clerical worker of a given age in one part of the country should on the average have a materially longer sickness claim than a clerical worker of the same age and sex in another part of the country. It is a very curious thing, requiring explanation, why a woman factory worker in one area suffering from, say, a digestive disorder should on the average remain on the fund longer than a woman factory worker in another area incapacitated by a similar trouble. These figures which have been presented to the Ministry of Health are very extraordinary and illuminating. This is the result of the examination:
The relationship between the average duration of a claim in an area, in the north of England and that of a claim in an area in the south of England is.…:

Cause of incapacity.

Excess per cent. of the northern area over the southern area.

Rheumatism
50


Nervous and mental disorders
41


Digestive disorders
21"


Those are very remarkable and difficult things to explain. I want at once to say, in order that I may not be misunderstood, that obviously in connection with a very large portion of the population such as is covered by national health insurance, unemployment and bad health must be considered contributory factors, but let no one think that it can be claimed that this great increase of claims is due to deterioration in the national health. The Minister, who has also, as I hope to show, gone a considerable way in endeavouring to remedy this trouble, has himself pointed out that it cannot for a moment be assumed that the great majority of these claims are in any way
due to such contributory causes as epidemics and unemployment. I would like to read this passage from Memorandum No. 329, issued by the Minister of Health, which has been made particularly available for approved societies. This is a very significant statement, which is made, of course, with the authority of the present Minister of Health:
These facts "—
that is, the Government Actuary's report, of which I have already given some quotations—
suggest that the increase may have been due not so much, if at all, to an increase in the amount of incapacitating sickness as to economic or other causes not dependent on state of health. If, over so long a period, there has been any corresponding increase of ill-health, there is no apparent reason why it should have manifested itself chiefly in illnesses of short duration, and not to a corresponding extent in cases of serious sickness, causing prolonged incapacity. Secondly, there is no apparent reason why such a change in general health should have affected women to an appreciable degree more than men, married women more than single women, or young people more than old. Thirdly, there is no collateral evidence indicating that the general health of the insured population was appreciably, if any, worse in 1927 than in 1921.

The position is all the more serious because, as has been so wisely pointed out in many of the communications which have been addressed from the Ministry of Health to approved societies, every payment of sickness or disablement benefit to an insured person who is not incapable of work diminishes the fund that would otherwise be available for the benefit of other members of the society.

In case this view which I am endeavouring to point out may be controverted—and I do not want anyone to rely on any statement of mine in this connection—in order to show the un-fortunate number of improper claims that are being made at the present time I should like to refer first to a statement which was made quite recently by the very experienced insurance Controller, who, I think, has the complete confidence of the approved societies. Sir Walter Kinnear went to the annual conference of the National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies, which met at Scarborough a few weeks ago, and he said this:
A year ago a group of societies submitted for an examination a stated proportion of all their members in receipt of
benefit. It was found, on the most conservative calculation, that 12 per cent. of all those persons were capable of work although still in receipt of benefit. 12 per cent. of the money spent last year on sickness or disablement benefit would amount to nearly £2,500,000. What a splendid specialist and consultant service they could have had if that money has been saved!

I see in the House this afternoon the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who, as everybody in the House knows, is the Secretary of a very important approved society, and I was very glad myself that he spoke out very plainly indeed, as I would have expected him to do, at the annual meeting of the delegates of his society only a few weeks ago. I have before me a report which appeared in one of the well-known insurance papers of the country:
Mr. Rhys Davies, M.P., who is Secretary of the National Union of Distributive Workers' Approved Society, with 40,000 members scattered all over the United Kingdom, did some plain speaking at the annual delegate meeting of that society held at Southport on 4th April.
He said that National Health Insurance finance was being sorely tried by doubtful claims, and unless an improvement took place the scheme must ultimately fall into the same chaos as the Unemployment Fund.
About 5 per cent. of the insured population studied the rules and regulations as if they were crossword puzzles, but managed to substantiate claims that were never intended to apply. That small proportion had developed what he would terra a benefit-claiming mind.
He appealed to all concerned to do all they could to avoid the catastrophe that might befall the scheme by making it clear that only genuine claims would be tolerated in future, otherwise we might have to resort to the German system of compelling every insured person to pay for his first medical certificate and bottle of medicine.

When we have views of this kind coming from very different quarters indeed, one does ask the questions to-day, What is going to happen; is there anything that should be done that is not being done; or can any other steps be taken to prevent what is the very real danger of the national health insurance system degenerating into the unfortunate financial condition of our unemployment insurance system? To refer to the words of the Minister of Health himself, I want to complete my observations on this matter by asking this question: What steps are being taken to repel—and now I quote
the words of the Minister of Health himself—"the continued advance of a tide of unjustified claims to sickness and disablement benefit?"

Since we discussed this matter last in the House of Commons the Minister of Health has taken at any rate two very important steps, and I think he has taken them, if I may respectfully say so, in the right direction. He has first endeavoured to strengthen the safeguards to be adopted by societies in connection with the supervision of claims, and he has very strongly urged upon approved societies the importance, in the first place, of maintaining an efficient system of sickness visitation, and, secondly, an early reference to the regional medical officers for examination of claims. I must say that when I read the other day the Memorandum which was issued under the authority of the Minister of Health to the approved societies of the country, I thought it illustrated the fact that at any rate the Minister of Health was now pretty well seized of the very serious position of affairs in this connection. One of the directions or pieces of advice which the Minister of Health has evidently felt it most necessary to bring to the notice of the approved societies is one which illustrates the urgency of the position and what I hope the societies will themselves feel to be the necessity of dealing with the situation much on the lines recommended by the Minister and his Department. He says this:
Societies will, as a result of their experience, he aware of the usual duration of incapacity due to the commoner illnesses, and subject to consideration of the information gained from a sick visitor's report or as a result of communicating with the member's doctor, they should not hesitate to refer to the Regional Medical Staff claimants whose incapacity is certified as continuing beyond the expected period.

Then he says this—it is the first time that the Minister or the Department have taken such a course—
It is, however, felt that societies will welcome more definite guidance as to types of cases in which a reference at a particular stage of the claim is ordinarily to be recommended, and as the result of the consideration given to the experience of the service as a whole, the Departments are in a position, and think it desirable, to give an indication of the action which they think societies should normally take on claims in which the cause of incapacity, stated in the medical certificate, is one of those specified below.

He then makes this suggestion:
Where incapacity is certified as being due to any of the following or similar conditions,"—

In the list he specifies catarrh, chill, cold, debility, dyspepsia and other conditions—
an immediate visit by a sick visitor should he made and, unless the visitor's report justifies delay, the member should at once be referred to the regional medical officer.

As the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Dr. Moms-Jones) knows, there is so much danger lurking in certified cases of that character, so far as the funds of the approved societies are concerned, that it is necessary that the approved societies should, without any loss of time, see that the sick visitor immediately visits the cases, and if he is not satisfied as to the bona-fides of the certificate which the medical man has given the case should at once be referred to the regional medical officer. Anyone who peruses the instructions given by the Minister of Health in this regard will see that a very strong line has been recommended.

The Minister of Health has taken certain steps with respect to the medical men, and I am in full agreement with him there. Some advice and, if necessary, some reminder is required in that connection. I notice that in the communication which the Minister of Health has made to the medical men he has reminded them of the fundamental principles upon which National Health Insurance has been founded. He has told them:
The payment to each claimant in a year of a single week's benefit beyond that to which he is properly entitled, would have the result of speedily bringing a large proportion of all approved societies and branches to a state of insolvency.

I think that was a very necessary reminder to the medical men. The right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum explains at length the principles on which the system is founded. He points out that there is not an unlimited fund, that contributions are made by the employers, the employés and the State, that if excessive claims are made the people who will suffer will be the insured people, and that in certain cases if there is insolvency a further levy will have to be made upon the insured members of the society. Since we last discussed this matter some months ago the Minister of Health has made an amending regulation so far as
the change of doctors is concerned. In place of the former period of 14 days' notice, insured persons are now only permitted to transfer on one month's notice at the end of four stated periods—March, June, September or December. That is an alteration which has been made for very obvious reasons. I do not know whether anyone will challenge that step, but I think that anyone who has been associated with approved society administration during the last two or three years will agree that the change is very necessary.

I should like to ask the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take further steps. Useful and desirable as the steps that he has taken may be, it is difficult to feel confident that sufficient has been done to rescue the National Health Insurance system from its present position. The approved societies in certain cases where their funds are adversely affected have the right to apply to what is called the Central Fund, and I should like the Minister of Health, if he can, to tell the House what is the position of the central fund and how long he thinks it will be able to sustain the claims that are being made upon it by the societies. There can be no doubt that, unless there is a complete change in the situation, there is very grave danger that the National Health Insurance system will degenerate into the unhappy and disastrous position of the Unemployment Insurance system. I think everyone will agree that the present situation calls for the vigilant attention and co-operation of the Ministry, the medical profession and the approved societies. I would like the Minister to say what is the position of the third valuation of the societies. That has a very important bearing upon the situation. I hope he will be able to make some statement on the subject and also say whether he contemplates some further step in connection with this very urgent matter.

One would think, having regard to the large sums of money which have been paid by the State and by the employers and the industrial classes in these directions, that we should have found by this time considerable relief in the number of people applying for Poor Law assistance, but the Poor Law figures at the present time contain certain very disturbing features. A large number of
people not confined to one quarter of the House or to one kind of society, have often represented to the people of this country that if we only embarked upon these great systems of widows' pensions, National Health Insurance, and Unemployment Insurance it would be reflected in the number of people applying to the Poor Law authorities for assistance. Nevertheless, I find that, during the first quarter of the present year, according to the returns of the Ministry of Health, more than 1,000,000 persons were in receipt of relief. On the 6th June, nearly 1,000,000 were in receipt of relief. I think the whole cost of the administration is something like £40,000,000.

Mr. BROOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that compares with the previous years?

Sir K. WOOD: There may be a certain reduction—the Minister of Health will have the figures—but nothing like what one would have expected, having regard to the very large sums of money expended in other directions. The present poor law figures stand at a number which has not been reached since March, 1930.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the classification in regard to those who are receiving benefit? He mentioned the case of the younger members. Has he any such classification in regard to the Poor Law?

Sir K. WOOD: I have some Poor Law figures, and I think it is very serious from the paint of view of the finances of the country that the total number in receipt of Poor Law relief is double the pre-War figures. I have a return which has been compiled from the Ministry of Health figures. It is a selection which has been made of the number of persons relieved in one day in June, 1931, in 47 selected areas. On that particular day there were 551,710 persons relieved, which is 9.6 per cent. more than in June, 1930. On looking at the list of selected places I find that in Derby the increase in the rate per 10,000 of the population as compared with a year ago was 110, in Liverpool 107, in Manchester 128, in Sheffield 114, in West Ham 71. I should like to know whether the Minister has any estimates of the number of employed persons who have been transferred from the Poor Law
lists to the Employment Exchanges, in consequence of the relaxation of the benefit conditions under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930.

Mr. LOGAN: Or vice versa.

5.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: That would be a very interesting statement to get. It would be interesting to know whether it has diminished the demands on public assistance administration or, on the other hand, is it true that in certain industrial areas the number of recipients of relief is now larger than immediately before the Act was put into operation. If the Minister could make such a statement it would be very interesting. Could he give us any estimate whether the Anomalies Bill, which I understand has now become law, will increase or not the number of people who are going to apply to the Public Assistance Committees? I do not know whether the Minister will be able to make any statement about the scales of relief, but in this respect I was interested to observe the position of the West Ham new guardians, My right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain may have some faint recollection of the West Ham Guardians. Having regard to my right hon. Friend's experience in that respect, it is interesting to note the official statement issued by the present Minister of Health, that the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in West Ham is substantially the same as in the days of the appointed guardians and that the amount of relief given is approximately the same, although it may be a little more. I was particularly interested in the statement of the Minister that the new guardians continue the practice of their predecessors of dealing with each case on its merits, after a thorough investigation of the circumstances.

Mr. McSHANE: That is Poor Law.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has not followed me. It is the statement made by the present Minister of Health on the administration of the West Ham Board of Guardians, people selected by the Minister to dislodge those who were called the Appointed Guardians.

Mr. McSHANE: It does not really matter who is administering relief. It must be administered in conformity with
the principles of the Poor Law, and that is that every case must be dealt with on its merits.

Sir K. WOOD: That is a most interesting statement. The hon. Member must have a short memory—

Mrs. MANNING: The crux of the position lies in the discernment of the merit.

Sir K. WOOD: I know the hon. Lady was not in the House in the days of the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston. She must read up the Debates for those days, and she will learn that everything was ascribed to the persons appointed by my right hon. Friend, they were the blackest of fellows, especially chosen for their cruel task. They starved the inhabitants of West Ham, and there was great indignation about 11 o'clock at night on the occasions when we discussed this matter. Therefore, it is interesting to know that things are going on in West Ham in just the same old way. The only other point I want to put to the Minister of Health is this. With the rise of sickness claims and national health insurance there is a great drain, not only on national health insurance funds but so far as Poor Law is concerned on the finances of local authorities, and I want to ask the Minister of Health what preparations are being made by local authorities for the winter. It is going to be a very grim winter, and the Minister of Health has certain responsibilities in the matter. I do not know whether hon. Members have read the report of the Committee presided over by Lord Chelmsford, which was set up at the earnest request of the Liberal party, who said that if only this Committee was appointed a large amount of work would be found which could be put in the hands of local authorities at an early' date. The Commitee hag just reported, and they say:
The general conclusion at which we arrive is that there is no great volume of work to be found immediately within the schemes which have been submitted to us.
That is the end of that.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: Oh, no.

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to hear from the Minister of Health whether he is taking adequate steps in this matter and whether he is thinking of the necessitous areas in the country. I notice that
a deputation went to him the other day, and no doubt he will be able to tell us what he proposes to do. In the days of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, we had the Lord Mayor's Fund and the unemployment figures in the necessitous areas were only about half what they are to-day. The only thing of which I have heard is that this deputation has waited upon the right hon. Gentleman. I have endeavoured not to be unduly critical of his administration. In many respects, I think the right hon. Gentleman has learnt from his predecessor. He has undoubtedly learnt a good deal since he became Minister of Health. We are all glad of it, and we hope that he will be able to give us some further information on these very important matters.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think the House will quarrel at the length of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), or that he devoted the greater part of his remarks to the administration of national health insurance. He avoided however in his speech two or three very awkward corners in relation to the administration of this scheme upon which I hope to have something to say before I sit down. I am afraid that the right hon. Member is the only Member of Parliament who takes very much notice of my speeches. I feel a little conceited that he attaches so great importance to what I say. But I notice that it is only on this particular subject he heeds my speeches. I adhere to everything I said in that speech, and I have no hesitation in saying again that my first concern about the national health insurance scheme is that it shall he maintained financially sound, and I should strongly criticise anybody, including a Conservative Government, who did anything at all to endanger its financial stability.
The first awkward corner which the right hon. Gentleman avoided was that the first serious blow at the finances of this scheme was aimed at and delivered by his own Government. I agree with practically everything he said about excessive claims, but let me remind him once again of figures which have become too familiar to him, and which perhaps may be carved on his tombstone when ha has passed away.
The right hon. Gentleman's party were responsible for what is called the
Economy Act of 1926. Let us see what the approved societies have already lost on account of that Act alone. The State grant was reduced by that Act by £2,800,000 per annum, and the approved societies were compelled by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman to accept liability, for the first time, in respect of the cost of medical benefit, which amounted to another £1,900,000 per annum. That is a reduction in the income of approved societies of £4,700,000 per annum, and that reduction in the income per annum has been going now on for five years. The approved societies, therefore, have lost in income, consequent upon the action of the right hon. Gentleman's party and Government, up to date a sum of £23,500,000, sufficient to put all the approved societies in a sound financial position. The right hon. Gentleman does not know perhaps that as a consequence one or two small societies have reached a stage, according to the last valuation, when it will be almost impossible for them to pay the statutory benefits. The Minister of Health, quite rightly, is practically forcing them to join another larger society in order that they may meet their legal liabilities.
Before I come to the wider aspect of national health insurance let me tell the right hon. Gentleman of another awkward corner that he avoided. He never said a word in criticism of the medical profession—he only read what the Minister of Health has said about them. He is obviously a politician. I want therefore to say a word about the medical profession in connection with the administration of national health insurance, and without being conceited I think I get a little nearer to the problem than the right hon. Member. He avoided also the dentists, the opticians and the surgical appliances makers, all of whom seem to have their eyes keenly fixed on the funds of approved societies. The light hon. Gentleman was inclined to blame the 17,000,000 insured persons. I shall hope to prove that some of the blame rests with other people.
I have endeavoured to give a little attention to the scheme in our own country and also to similar schemes which are in operation abroad, and I regret to say that all such schemes, wherever
they exist, are at the present moment on their trial. The first scheme of this kind ever established was at the instigation of the great German statesman, Bismarck, when he introduced his national health insurance scheme in order apparently to try and stop the onward march of social democracy. It failed. That scheme to-day, unfortunately, is in a very bad way financially, and for very much the same reasons that our own scheme is beginning to decline in financial stability.
I am satisfied that the standard of honour in relation to claims from the insured population, from the medical profession, from the dentists, from the opticians, and also from some Governments, must be raised and improved, otherwise this scheme will ultimately fail in its objects. People have changed their attitude completely since the War in relation to public funds, and in relation to friendly society funds and approved society funds—and, I suppose I ought to add, in relation to Tory funds, too.

Mr. McSHANE: Wait until the standard of physique is improved.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member has made a suggestion which of course, must be considered. The industrial depression and the consequent unemployment must in fact weigh above all with anyone who takes these problems into consideration, but I would remind those who are not so intimately in touch with this question as some of us, that there are approved societies—I have said this before—comprised almost entirely of members who suffer very little from bad conditions of employment or from low wages, or from unemployment, but m which there is still an increase in the average rate of sickness claims. The reasons are deep and profound. I am not therefore going to say that the doctors or the insured are entirely to blame. Let me give the case of my own society, and the right hon. Member for West Woolwich will agree with me that it is the best managed society of the lot. The average number of days of benefit paid away to males in my own society grew in the three quinquennial periods from 3.86 to 4.35, and then to 4.90. That is to say, that there has been an increase in 15 years of approximately one day in
the claims for benefit in respect of every male member of the society per annum. If you have an increase of only one day's claim over the whole of the insured population per annum, the increase in the amount in benefit is simply colossal.
Some people will argue that these little items do not matter. But when a scheme is based on actuarial considerations every decimal point must be taken into account, and when you have one claim out of every 100 unjustifiable, it upsets the whole of your financial calculations. I have been a propagandist for about 30 years and I have been an administrator for about a quarter of a century. I confess that the gulf between the administrator and the propagandist in relation to these funds is almost unbridgeable, I like to be both on occasions, but I have to deal with the funds of my members, and consequently have to look after them. The most remarkable thing of all that emerges is this, that every attempt that has been made by the approved societies to reduce the average duration of sickness has, lo and behold, met with exactly the opposite result. Take one illustration. We were told when dental benefit was established that the rate of sickness benefit would decline almost automatically. In fact just in proportion as we have provided dental benefit there has been an increase in the claims for sickness benefit. I am not complaining, but that is a fact which faces every administrator of an approved society.
The right hon. Member for West Woolwich put forward another important point. It would have been very interesting, as he said, if we could have had the returns of the third valuation of approved societies before us to-day. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister may have had something very interesting to tell us on that score. I have secured a return of 66 trade union societies which have received individually their returns for the last valuation period. The returns of these trade union societies are not quite as bad as the right hon. Gentleman would have led us to suppose from the general argument that he put forward to-day, but what is termed the segregated approved societies are never-the less in a bad way. The miners' societies, for instance, must be, by comparison, in a bad way financially. Where there is a long dispute in any one industry
the society concerned is bound to suffer in consequence of that dispute, because there is no contribution income coming in. The Minister will know how very important this question is in the case of the segregated societies. I am very much afraid that they cannot carry on much longer on the present basis. Then there are approved societies which cover few but married women, and they are obviously in financial difficulty as well. In my own society we had to separate the women from the men for valuation purposes. It may interest lady Members of the House to know that the majority of the women voted in favour of a separate valuation for themselves.
I am glad to see some medical men present. They are daily dealing with the very serious problem that troubles approved societies. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich skated over this subject very delicately. The Minister of Health has issued instructions that insured persons shall not change their doctors as often as hitherto. The point at issue is this: I have no doubt at all in saying that there is something fundamentally wrong in the relationship between the medical profession, the Government Department and the approved societies. The point that arises always in my mind in dealing with medical certificates—they are written, of course, in very legible handwriting—is, why cannot doctors call diseases by English names, or by Welsh, instead of indicating them in Latin and Greek terms which are beyond our comprehension? There is no doubt at all that some members of the medical profession do issue certificates that are absolutely unjustifiable. I would add, however, that I have reason to pay tribute to the high skill and genius of the medical profession in this country. No man has more reason to pay that tribute than I have. But the high standard of their professional skill somehow does not percolate into their business and administrative work.
That leads me at once to a point on which I want to touch. The doctor has no relation to the amount of benefit paid away on his certificate. If we could bring home to the medical profession the amount of damage that may be done to the funds of approved societies by issuing certificates where they ought not
to be issued, then the medical profession would come up against the same problem as we are faced with every day.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I do not think the hon. Member is quite correct. The medical profession is subject to a penalty in the event of any excessive certification.

Mr. DAVIES: If the hon. Member has been in panel practice I am sure he will agree with my statement, which I make in the very best spirit, because what I want to see is greater co-operation between the medical profession and the approved societies. It is a fact that the issue by the panel doctor of a medical certificate has no relation at all to the amount of money paid away on that certificate. Until we can bring home to the medical profession how adversely loose certification affects the funds of approved societies, we shall never get out of this difficulty. That is a point that ought to receive the attention of the Minister of Health. Take the anomalies that arise. I forget how many panel doctors there are, but I believe the number is about 15,000. The approved societies, however, at the instigation of the Minister of Health, pay the fees of regional medical officers in order to scrutinise the certificates issued by the 15,000 panel doctors. That is a legitimate complaint. Whereas the funds are used in the first instance to pay about £8,500,000 per annum to the 15,000 panel doctors, we have again to pay medical inspectors, as it were, to see that the 15,000 do their work properly. That is a very unfair financial arrangement.
The same remark applies to the regional dental officers. It is well known that the funds of approved societies have also been unduly damaged by unjustified dental claims made upon them and the consequent pressure by some of the medical profession. On the whole, in cool judgment, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way out of these difficulties until the doctors are in some way employed by the State. I hope I am not saying this in any spirit which will arouse antagonism. The medical profession is unlike other persons who serve the health insurance scheme. Doctors are paid their fees per capita per annum from the general fund. They serve the approved societies, but the societies have
little say as to the terms of their engagement except through the insurance committees. There must, in my opinion, be a change in this arrangement. The Minister will find some useful information on that point in what has transpired in other countries very recently.
But let me turn to something else. These schemes, as I stated, were first established in Germany. They have now spread nearly all over the world; and although we are complaining that the scheme in our own country is suffering from pressure of all kinds, and that the funds are not as healthy as they might be, it may be a consolation to us to know that exactly the same problems arise in most other countries in the world. I would like to thank the International Labour Office for providing the very best information available regarding this type of social service in foreign lands. Austria has had a scheme for a very long time, and this is what is said about Austria:
In Austria the sickness funds are being particularly affected by the depression, which has diminished the contributions received and increased the expenditure on behalf of insured persons who have become unemployed and are compelled by deprivation to apply to the funds.
Very largely that is our case too. As far away as Brazil a scheme of this kind is in operation, and this is what is said about the Brazilian system:
It is proposed that a revision which is necessitated among other things, by the very high costs of the benefits in kind (medical and pharmaceutical benefit) should endeavour both to increase resources and to reduce charges.
The voice of Brazil probably will help the Minister to try to bring about a better understanding between our medical profession and the approved societies. But the best illustration of all of what is occurring to these schemes elsewhere is the latest report that comes from Germany. The scheme there covers about 5,000,000 more people than our own. It is an older scheme, and they have had, therefore, more experience of its administration. I think I am right in saying that in May of last year no Member of the Reichstag of any party would face the question of increasing claims on health insurance because of fear of political consequences. The Reichstag was dissolved, and I understand that President Hindenburg issued an edict to the effect that very insured person,
as from July, 1930, in order to save the funds of the society, should pay 6d. for his first medical certificate and 6d. for his first bottle of medicine. I am informed that even that small contribution has had a wonderful steadying effect upon the number of claims received. That is an astonishing state of affairs, but we have to face the facts. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich should not always blame the insured population. His whole argument was that the claims were excessive. I wish to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman at the end of every paragraph, and at the beginning of every chapter, that it was his Government which began to undermine the financial solidarity of this scheme by the Economy Act of 1926. I put that point in wherever I can.
In order that the House may understand that the problems of national health insurance with which we are confronted to-day are not peculiar to our own country, I wish to refer to the fact that in the small state of Luxembourg last year there was a dispute, which divided the doctors and the approved societies on questions connected with the fixing and payment of medical fees. We have not come to that position yet. The doctors and ourselves, on the whole, are on very friendly terms, and if we could get over this one point, of what we term loose certification, I think that possibly the funds of the societies could again be soundly maintained. The most remarkable case from a foreign land however is that from Russia. It may be interesting if I read a few words which have reached me as to the position of health insurance and kindred systems in Russia. It is said:
There is a desire among the ruling circles in Russia to increase the relative amount of benefit granted in cases of permanent incapacity at the expense of the benefit in eases of temporary incapacity and to improve the medical service for the benefit of the insured.
I conclude by putting the matter thus: I am very anxious that there shall be no suspicion that the approved societies are checking unfairly the certificates of the medical profession; but when it is found that the approved societies, according to the Minister's own statement have referred to the regional medical officers thousands of cases and that upon second examination it has been found that in about 58 per cent. of those
cases the persons concerned are capable of work, then I think the approved societies are entitled to ask the reason why. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that issue. I feel sure, in spite of all that has been said, in spite of all our criticisms of doctors, dentists, opticians, of the insured population and of Governments, we still possess in this country a health insurance scheme which is financially the soundest in the world. It is because I wish to maintain it in that position that I have spoken so much about it this afternoon.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: This Vote which embraces the Ministry of Health, deals with a very large subject involving many points of view and it seems a pity that we should have to deal with the affairs of a vast Ministry like this at the very tail-end of the Session. The importance attached to national health insurance is clearly shown by the fact that it has been practically the only subject discussed this afternoon on this Vote. I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman who was associated with the Ministry of Health under the last Administration and who will, I hope, be in a higher sphere under the next Administration. I am sure that that is the wish of almost all Members of the House who have observed the great diligence and energy which he has shown in this Parliament. I also listened with interest to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who is an authority on the branch of national health insurance with which he dealt. The right hon. Gentleman and he were, as far as I could see, in considerable agreement on several points. The question of excessive claims for sickness benefit under the national health insurance system is probably, apart from the question of the deficiency on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the most serious matter with which Parliament and the Administration have to deal at present. As far back as 1925, warnings were given in regard to this matter. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton that the state of things in this respect is really any better this year than it was in the peak year of 1929, if allowance is made for what I may call the very serious epidemic which took place in this country
in the years 1928 and 1929. That was the most serious epidemic since 1919 and the House will appreciate that one would naturally expect to have a smaller amount of claims, proportionately, this year than in those other years.
What are the causes for the present state of things? I compliment the hon. Member for Westhoughton on the courage which he showed in blaming everybody. He blamed the medical profession, the insured persons, the approved societies, the opticians, the chemists, the makers of surgical instruments—I do not think he left anyone out. I suppose that the hon. Member was on pretty safe ground in making the sweeping charge that the standard of honour of all these classes of people had been very much reduced. I agree with him in this sense, and I feel sure that the House will take this statement in the spirit in which I make it. I am convinced that there is a tendency among all classes of the population, insured and others, to try to got as much for nothing as they possibly can. That applies to all classes of the community, and I do not think that insured persons are more guilty in that respect than any other class of the population. I would say that one of the main causes, apart from a certain slackness, is a kind of grasping tendency which all classes of people seem to be adopting in these days in all parts of the world from Brazil to Russia. Apparently people in all climes show that peculiarity as far as health insurance is concerned. That is illus-strated by the quotations given by the hon. Member.
I submit to the House that, unquestionably, the next great factor in this matter is the serious economic position in the world and, especially in this country, the unemployment position. I do not think it possible for a man who is a long time out of work to be really healthy. I am not now engaged in panel practice, but I had many years' experience of it, and I consider that one great cause of the present position under this scheme is the economic depression which is affecting the physical and mental health of the insured population. If the House agrees with me that that, to a great extent, is one of the causes, then
I do not think that they will agree with the hon. Member as regards the medical profession, or consider that the medical profession, in the circumstances, is so much to blame. There is no more difficult problem before the medical profession at the present time than this question of sickness claims among insured persons, and the members of the professions are as much alive to their responsibilities as the approved societies.
The medical practitioners in this matter are in a position which is, if possible, worse than that of the Liberal party in this House, as holders of the balance. They have to hold the balance between the State or the approved societies on the one side and the person who is ill or supposed to be ill on the other side. There is no more difficult position in which any man can be placed, than the position in which the medical man finds himself on frequent occasions in regard to this matter. I hope the House will permit me to speak in rather plain terms on this matter. Supposing that, as often happens, the question of debility arises. This is a most elastic term. It may mean anything from congenital laziness to a serious state of ill-health, but when you meet a real case of debility there is no other term that will fit it, and a medical man is bound as a matter of conscience and honour, to certify that a person suffering from it is unfit for work. The hon. Member for Westhoughton suggested that too much medicine was taken, but I would like to know what he would say if he himself—

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I point out that I never said anything of the kind? What I said was that the more medicine that was taken the greater the claims on the funds.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I would agree that there is too much medicine drunk in this country, but I should be sorry for any man who started preaching in this country that it should not be drunk at all. I know of no superstition or tradition or habit or whatever you like to call it, of which it is more difficult to cure the population of this country than the tradition that a bottle of medicine is a cure for all evils. No doubt the Ministry of Health are quite cognisant
of the various points which have been raised regarding the increase in sickness claims and have gone into the matter very carefully. There is no question that the increase has been very much larger in the ease of women than of men, and I suggest that there is one cause for that effect. A woman may still be able to do housework in her home, although she has been certified as incapable of following an outside occupation. From many years' experience I know that very often where a certificate has been given, showing that a woman who is an insured person is not fit for the occupation in which she is insured, she is engaged in active work in her household—work which, in many cases, would be quite as arduous as the occupation in respect of which she is receiving benefit. How you are going to deal with that is a problem, but there is a very great leakage under the Act on the question of women certified as unfit for normal employment, who are drawing week by week national health insurance benefit, and being engaged in occupations of a household character which, in my submission, are equally as arduous as the work for which they are certified as physically incapacitated.
With regard to more early notification to the regional medical officer, I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested that in the case of those insured persons who are notified as suffering from a cold, chill, or catarrh, an inspector of the approved society should have the right to enter the household and make inquiries.

Sir K. WOOD: That was not my opinion; it was a direction given by the Minister of Health in a recent Memorandum.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I am more sorry still to find that a recommendation of that sort could be made by a responsible Government Department. An inquisition of that character, where inspectors of approved societies are allowed to inspect certificates which have been given by duly qualified medical practitioners, and start making inquiries, as it were, behind the back of the medical man, as to whether
these illnesses were genuine, would, I think, be intolerable.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: That is what they do every day.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was in relation to these particular ailments which have been mentioned. May I suggest that I do not think that any medical man has a right to put a thing like a cold on a certificate of an insured person? I do not agree that an inspector of the approved society should start dissecting and analysing a certificate, but I suggest that the Ministry should state categorically that no insurance certificate should be accepted for such a thing as a cold or a chill. I think the phraseology should be more specific in its character. After all, a cold is a very wide term, but, as has been mentioned, it is a symptom, and of a very vague character, I do not think that certificates such as that should be accepted, but that more definite phraseology should be used in respect of some of these ailments. I would like to say, as I said at the beginning, that medical men at the present time are faced not only with a feeling of the most serious responsibility, but with very great difficulty in regard to their interpretation of the regulations as to whether a man or woman is able to follow his or her occupation. I submit that in difficult circumstances they are doing their very best.
I should like to call the attention of the Minister to the research board investigations which are in the hands of the Ministry, or which they assist, and the recent suggested discovery in regard to supposed tests for cancer. I feel sure that everyone will rejoice, from whatever quarter they may come, whether in this country or any other country, in any tests which may be found to be absolutely complete and which will render the diagnosis of this very serious malady more easy, more accurate, and more certain. But I should like to submit to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that when some discovery of this sort is announced from a foreign country, they should look here at home, where investigations have been made for 15 or 20 years, and where reports have been sent to the Ministry on exactly the same lines
as the discovery that has recently been made in Holland.
If my information is correct, investigations have shown that the tests which have been found in regard to the diagnosis of this complaint have already been discovered and reported to the Ministry of Health in this country, but that no special subsidy at any rate has been given in order to encourage some of these pathologists and investigators to go on with their work. I think it is unfortunate that Votes of the character of this Vote should be taken so late in the Session, because I do not know that there is any Ministry in this country which embraces more directly or indirectly every section of the inhabitants of the country than does the Ministry of Health. We would like to have further opportunities for discussion, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister a review, which I hope will be a little more complete than the review which he gave the House last year.

Mr. MELLER: We have so far listened to what is one of the most interesting discussions that this House has had. It has been a discussion which embraces, as has already been said, a vast portion of the population, affecting almost everybody more or less in their everyday life, and raising topics which are more understandable of the people than perhaps some of the abstruse subjects which necessarily come before this House.
I wish to ask the Minister if he will deal with one question on the subject of maternal and child welfare centres. In December of last year he issued a pamphlet to the local authorities urging them to take up the matter of maternal and child welfare, a subject which was very dear to the heart of his predecessor, and I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman has himself taken it up with such a zest. I think the House and the country would like to know how far the local authorities have acceded to his requests that there should be more spirit and energy thrown into the provision of these centres. He has not yet been able to bring before the House a scheme for dealing with that question of maternal mortality and morbidity, but I think the local authorities can do a great deal by advice to expectant mothers and help on the healthy rearing of their children.
Anything that he can do in that direction will, I am sure, be welcomed heartily by the people of this country. Any indication he can give us that this Memorandum issued to local authorities has increased the number of welfare centres and the interest in this subject, will be received with the greatest pleasure.
The Debate this afternoon has been concerned more particularly with the question of national health insurance, and I should like to congratulate the Minister on the issue of memoranda both to the approved societies and the medical profession, which deal very faithfully and very frankly with the situation. I have no doubt that during the Debate to-day we shall hear more than one apology for some of the allegations which have been made against the medical profession. I approach this subject with the very deepest respect for the medical profession; indeed, I want to adopt words contained in the Memorandum issued to the profession, in which the Minister says:
It must be noted that it is nowhere suggested in this Memorandum that insurance practitioners as a whole have been responsible for the general result. On the contrary, the strongest evidence adduced respecting the issue of certificates of incapacity to persons who were not incapacitated is that derived from a comparison of the results of the work of different practitioners.
Therefore, there is no need for the medical profession to be troubled when this matter is discussed, as no doubt it will be discussed to-day and in future, because the Minister has come to the conclusion that there is a state of affairs which demands some explanation, and because he says, "There may be a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on your part as to the principles of national health insurance. May I bring to your notice some of the results of the experiments and examinations which have been made, and let us see whether there is something inherently wrong in the system itself, or whether there is something wrong with the health of the people of this country." I think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in doing that, because, after all, this scheme costs a great deal of money. A sum of very nearly £9,000,000 is spent upon medical treatment and medicines for the insured population of this country. It is a vast
sum to be spent on, I believe, some 15,000 medical practitioners who come tinder the Act. Therefore, we are entitled to ask this honourable profession that they should give a service that shall be reckoned as worthy of an honourable profession, with full honesty and due regard to the insured persons. We want them to apply that skill which they have attained by their training in the fullest possible manner.
I was rather interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) refer to some of the causes of incapacity which are stated upon certificates, and he used that word which has become almost as blessed as the word "Mesopotamia," namely, the word "debility." Everybody knows, of course, that debility is not a disease but a symptom, and no reasonable person in the examination of a claim in its early stages would be disposed to say that debility was a wrong cause of incapacity to give. It merely confesses that at the moment the practitioner is not able to diagnose the actual disease. The patient is debilitated, but in the course of a few days the practitioner ought to be able to determine what is the real cause of incapacity or to cease giving certificates under the heading of "debility." That would not be my complaint against the medical profession. There is loose certification certainly among some members of the profession, and quite recently I saw a certificate which contained these initials "I.D.K.," which I believe meant "I don't know." When a professional gentleman descends to that sort of thing, I think we have cause of complaint.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Member object to the medical profession being honest occasionally?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. MELLER: I should have said that that was hardly honest and was a little misleading, because I am only surmising that I.D.K. means "I don't know." If it means something else within the vocabulary of the medical profession, the doctor in question ought to have at least the common understanding that he is dealing with mere laymen, and should have put upon the certificate some words to convey the real condition of the
patient. There was a case of a doctor who put on the certificate "Je ne sais pas." That sort of thing means that some members of the medical profession are not applying their minds to health insurance in the serious way they ought to do. Some of these things are very distasteful to the profession. There was another case of a certificate, in reference to a person who was incapable of work some weeks, saying that he was suffering from abrasion of the ribs, and it appeared that during the time he was upon the funds, he engaged in a heavyweight boxing contest and had laid out his opponent in the fifth round. That sort of thing is, of course, unsatisfactory, but I do not claim that it is a typical sample of what is being done. On the contrary, very excellent service is given by the medical profession, as a whole, and if we had this good service performed by all the panel practitioners, I doubt very much whether we should be here to-day complaining that there is an excess of claims over the expected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) always speaks with a frankness born of true knowledge and experience, but I think that in his endeavour to hit back at my right hon. Friend with regard to certain actions that were taken during the life of the Conservative Government, he rather misled the House. He was disposed to ascribe the paucity of funds for distribution by way of additional benefits to the action of the Government, and to say that all would be well if we had that money back again. If, however, I understand the Memorandum that has been issued to the societies, the gravamen of the complaint is that the expected is 100 and that the actual is greatly in excess of 100, and whatever might have been the money in the hands of the societies for disposal, whether the result of the economy Act or otherwise, you cannot get away from the fact that, if 100 per cent. was the expected, and if you have got into the neighbourhood of 159 per cent. in excess of the expected, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark which must be looked into.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not possible that the actuarial calculations were altered consequent upon the reduction of the State grant from 1926 onwards?

Mr. MELLER: The actuary who made his report some time ago said that the figures were in excess of the expected, and presumably the expected must have been the basis upon which the Act was framed. I want to deal with some of the points in this Memorandum, and to join, as I hope the Minister will join, in an exhortation to the medical profession, not to condemn them, but rather to ask them whether they can find out the cause of these extraordinary results, and whether it is in fact due to the bad health of the people, or to some other cause. The hon. Member pointed out that it had been necessary—I think that he called it one of the anomalies—in the health insurance scheme, where you are paying large sums of money to the medical profession to look after the health of the people, to spend a large sum of money on a service to look after the medical profession to see that the scheme was carried out. There had been a system of the visitation of the sick in operation long before health insurance under the old friendly societies. When a man was at home sick, it was sometimes the friendly inspiration of the visitor which led him to go back to work probably earlier than he would have done, but not against medical advice. There came a time in 1921 when the suggestion was made that it would be good to have some medical advice as to whether the certificates were given in proper order and for a longer duration than was really necessary.
In the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Health, on page 12, the figures of references and examinations are set out. In 1922, in England and Wales, 113,000 cases were referred for examination, and it gradually rose until in 1930 no less than 531,000 cases were submitted. There are some significant results from these references. Of the cases that were submitted for examination in 3922, 40 per cent. were found to be still incapable of work. Sixty per cent. of the cases declared oft, either because they did not attend for examination or because they were found by the medical referee to be capable of work. One would have thought, if certification was going on in the very best way, that as you began to increase the number of the references, the number of persons found incapable of work would be increased also, and that the number of persons
found to be capable of work would have got leas. But that was not so. I find, according to this return, that when 531,000 persons were referred for examination, only 34 per cent., as against 40 per cent. in 1922, were found incapable of work. That justifies the Minister in saying in his Memorandum:
Had those who ceased to draw benefit represented those only about whose fitness for work there was room for a legitimate difference of medical opinion, together with those who might have regained their working capacity between the date of the last intermediate certificate issued prior to reference and the date when they ceased benefit after reference, it is difficult to believe that the great increase of references would not by now have been accompanied by a substantial increase in the proportion of those referred who were found to be incapable of work and continued to draw benefit after reference.
He went on to say:
When all weight that can reasonably be claimed for them has been given to the factors of lapse of time, and of differences of medical opinion, in respect of persons referred who cease to draw benefit, the results of these investigations make it difficult to resist the conclusion that a substantial proportion of those who at any particular time are receiving sickness or disablement benefit are persons who are not incapable of work.
That seems a serious and grave indictment to make, whether it be against the insured person, or against the medical profession, or against the societies. I am not attempting to lay a charge at the door of any one of the three, but I say that such a memorandum deserves the earnest attention of this House as the great platform from which views may be expressed, and from which it should go out with a very loud voice that something has to be done to repair this state of things. It is not only a reflection upon the medical profession, but a reflection upon the moral honesty of the people. If there be a good and honest reason why these things obtain, then let us know it, and I am sure that the Minister of Health will be only too anxious to withdraw the allegations which are contained in the memorandum.
Arising out of the examinations which have been made, one thing stands out pre-eminently among all others. That is the fact that the increase in the sickness experience is greater among married women than any other class. While the expected is 100, the actual for sickness benefit is 106 per cent. above the expected,
and for disablement benefit 159 per cent. above the expected. Such a state of things means that if married women were to stand alone, their scheme would be insolvent. I am sure that it gives the Minister grave concern as to what is to be done with this particular portion of the insured population. What is the difficulty with regard to married women? When the Irish Free State was set up there was a separation of that portion of the health insurance members resident in the Free State, and the Government there had then to consider the problem of the married women. There had been a suggestion, in the years prior to the separation, of a scheme of what was known as the marriage bonus, under which when a woman ceased work on marriage there was a payment of part of the reserves given to her, and her insurance ceased; if, again, she went into the employment market, she had to start again as a fresh insured person.
That scheme was never adopted in this country. On a woman ceasing work to become married, she was allowed benefit for six weeks in one year should sickness take place, and maternity benefit during a period of two years. An unfortunate position has arisen from the experience in regard to some of the women. I do not know whether the feminine mind is such that a woman is never quite sure about the experiment she is undertaking in marrying, and is not sure whether she will return to work or not, but in many cases she does become a casual worker. That is the real difficulty of the situation in regard to married women. She may be in work for a day or two as it suits her, and at other times if sick she is receiving an amount which is equivalent to, and sometimes greater than, the amount she would be getting from her casual work.
That matter has been considered by a body outside, and they say that if you are to put the scheme with regard to married women on a satisfactory basis, you have to do something to meet the situation, and if married women are to be accepted as an insurance proposition, there are three courses open, namely, to increase the contributions to meet the risk, or to reduce benefits, or to deal
with the matter somewhat on the lines of the present system, that is to say, when a woman marries, she must pass out of insurance, and if she subsequently enters the employment market, she must requalify for benefit. During the time of requalification a limited sickness and maternity benefit would be provided. In that way, she will start on level terms with the unmarried woman or the widow who is in the labour market. I hope that the Minister will consider that particular point. There is no doubt that the married women's side of the health insurance scheme is not a satisfactory or a healthy proposition at the present time.
Another point which deserves the attention of the Minister is the effect of a high sickness experience and a low contribution record. It must be a tremendous factor in the success of a society that when it has a high sickness experience the contributions shall be sufficient to meet the strain, but you cannot expect that in a period of great unemployment. In 1928 the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) introduced a Measure which wiped out penalty arrears. Up to that time members had to suffer a reduction of their benefits in proportion to the number of arrears which they had and that was known as the penalty arrears system. Under the Act of 1928 there was a special concession of the extension of the life of the membership if the member had gone through a prolonged period of genuine unemployment, so that his insurance could run for two years and nine months. No payment in respect of that was made to the societies by the State, but it Was suggested that out of what was known as the unclaimed stamps account, a grant of £500,000 should be made to the Societies to help them to carry the burden. As a matter of fact, the liabilities upon the societies in respect of that burden amount to something like £680,000—in 1930 it was more than that, and for 1931 the figure promises to be higher still. It was contemplated that the amount would be £680,000, leaving a deficiency of £180,000 a year to be borne by the societies, but in point of fact there is a greater deficiency to be borne by the societies.
At the end of 1930 we were faced with a difficulty which was brought prominently before this House by certain hon. Members from the Clyde area. An hon. Member opposite made a bold effort, which was successful, to see that the insurances of these people should not be put in jeopardy without some effort on the part of the Government. At the last moment, in December, 1930, the Government brought forward what was known as the prolongation Act, which to that extent gave a subsidy in favour of insured persons in order to tide them over until the end of 1931. But what I want the Minister to apply his mind to is this serious question of the arrears. We cannot keep the societies on a solvent basis if we put upon them the responsibility of providing full benefits for their members while at the same time they see the contributions declining. This is a matter which has to be met, and I hope the Minister will do something to meet the situation. I am sure the Minister is cognisant of the urgency of dealing with the subject of prolongation and the condition of those persons who, but for some assistance from the Government, will pass out at the end of 1931. The country and all who are concerned with this matter ought not to be left in a state of suspense till the very end of the year. I hope the Minister will deal with this matter in his reply. The number of persons in arrear is increasing; there is no question about that. It must be evidence from the way the figures of unemployment have gone up.
Apart altogether from the subject we have been discussing, which is the drain upon the funds of approved societies through a sickness experience which was greater than had been expected, there is no more important matter to consider than the position of those persons who, if no assistance is forthcoming from the Government, will find their health insurance in jeopardy. The present drain upon the societies imposes a burden which is not borne by some imaginary person or body; it is a burden which is borne by the members of the society. If they have paid in contributions proportionate to a particular risk, they are entitled when sickness comes upon them to have the benefits promised paid in full. If, on the other hand, the funds of the
societies have been drained by keeping in benefit numbers of man and women in respect of whom no contributions have been paid, we shall not be able to meet, as we ought to meet, the moral contract between the insured person and the State, of those insured persons who have made the necessary contributions. Therefore, I join in the exhortation for better administration, a more careful issue of certificates by doctors, and a greater realisation of what depends upon the issue of a certificate. All Members of the House, members of approved societies and members of the medical profession should join in seeing that this scheme, above all schemes, shall not get upon the slippery slops of Unemployment Insurance, but maintain, as it has maintained for nearly 20 years, a state of proud solvency.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: I am glad the question of the medical profession has been raised this afternoon. It is about time we came to grips with this subject of sickness experience. When this question was discussed on a previous occasion, I gave expression o the view that what was then said about sickness experience was grossly exaggerated. We did not take proper stock of the abnormal conditions obtaining during the past four or five years. A reduced standard of living must have the effect of producing a considerable amount of illness. I think the medical profession will say that a good deal of the increase of sickness is due to the reduced stamina of the people. Unless there is a marked change in our economic conditions, I feel that sickness experience will become even worse, and therefore it is exceedingly important that societies should retain all their funds. I shall deal presently with the effects of the Economy Act, 1926, and shall ask the Minister what he intends to do in that respect. I have no complaint about the general administration of this Department, because I believe it has been very excellent indeed; my complaint is that the Ministry are endeavouring to force societies to adopt methods of sickness visitation, and do work which doctors will say is work which they alone ought to do. If the figures produced here, though I do not accept them in their entirety, are correct, they stow that doctors have failed lamentably in carrying out the work of certification.
It is a curious thing that a layman, a sick visitor, should be called upon to decide when a person's case should be referred to a regional medical officer. Recently the Ministry of Health issued a Memorandum on this subject. In 1922 the number of cases referred was 130,000, whereas in 1930 the number was no less than 573,000. A large number of these persons are clearly entitled to be on the funds of their society. I know men of decent character, men who would not dream of malingering, who have been referred, willy-nilly, to the regional medical officer. His report has been that the case ought never to have been sent to him. I know of cases sent to the regional medical officer in which the patient has been dead the next week. That shows that proper care was not taken before the case was referred. Sick visitors, however estimable they may be in their general character, are having cast upon them a responsibility which is too grave for them. At the same time, there must have been something wrong with the diagnosis in the first place.
Except in rare instances, it should be the duty of the panel doctor to decide whether a person is entitled to be on the funds or not, yet the Ministry are trying to force the approved societies, at great expense, to increase their sickness visitation. I tried the other day, by means of a question, to "draw" the Minister on the subject of sickness visitation, but, as is usual, I found it very difficult to do so—to get the answer that I wanted. Even when one puts supplementary questions, one gets an answer that is entirely different from what had been expected or hoped for. This after-noon, therefore, I want to ask the Minister a very plain question: Is he entirely satisfied with the medical service under the National Health Insurance Acts, and, if not, in what way does he suggest that it should be improved? That is the thing to which we have to get down. This "scrapping" has been going on for the last 10 or 15 years—charges made against the medical profession, retorts by the medical profession, who place themselves upon a pedestal and refuse to come down from it. It is my belief that the Ministry are not satisfied that the medical service is what it ought to be. That is the root of the
matter. If this malingering is going on to anything like the extent suggested the responsibility for it should be put on the societies; if the doctors are afraid to put people off the funds when they ought to be off, they should be freed from that fear by a different form of service.
May I help the Minister by reminding him of his own circular, to which reference has been made this afternoon? It gives details of investigations on behalf of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. In 1929, 88,903 persons were referred to the regional medical staff. There was about six times that number in the first instance, but those were the cases picked out. There was this amazing result—a state of things which, if it is true, must make the Ministry alter the system under which it is loft to laymen to refer these cases to the regional medical officers—that of the 83,903 cases, 58.5 per cent. ceased to receive medical benefit. On examination by the regional medical officer, those persons were, presumably, declared to be found not incapable of work. [Interruption.] At any rate, they went off the fund. I want hon. Members to understand that there is a difference between the practice of approved societies and the practice of the old friendly societies. Under the old friendly societies a man had to be capable of following his occupation, which is an entirely different thing from being able to work. A man may be a miner or a coal porter and not capable of following that occupation, but if he can do any light work they are entitled to put him off the fund.
There is a marked difference now in the practice of approved societies. No fewer than 88,903 persons were referred to the regional medical staff in 1929, and 58.5 per cent. ceased to receive benefit. The figures were: In 1921, incapable of work, 64.45; not incapable of work, 35.55. In 1922, incapable of work, 68.09; not incapable of work, 31.91. In 1923, incapable of work, 73.92; not incapable of work, 26.08. In the first six months of 1924, incapable of work, 75.74; not incapable of work, 24.26. Does that show proper certification on the part of the doctors? The report of the Ministry in connection with the 1929 cases is:
A substantial proportion of insured persons claim or continue to claim benefit who, on reference to an independent medical referee, would be found not incapable of work.
What have hon. Members to say about a statement of that kind? That is the conclusion of an independent examination of the work of medical practitioners who are receiving over £7,000,000 per annum from insurance funds, or an average of £500 per doctor per annum. What have the doctors done for an average salary of £500 in excess of what they were receiving from their ordinary practices before they took on their duties under the National Health Insurance Act? Medical benefit in 1929 cost no less than £8,760,000, or more than half the sums spent in sickness and disablement benefit, which amount to £16,600,000. Since the Act has been in operation, £10,500,000 has been spent in dental benefit. We were told when dental benefit was brought into operation that this would have an immense effect on the health of the people, but the result has been more and more sickness claims. In spite of all these huge payments, sickness increases, lax certification increases, and payment to doctors increases.
I want to call attention to this point: If medical practitioners were doing their work properly, there should be no need for elaborate schemes of sickness visitation which is advocated by the Department. In any case, it should not be the duty of a body of laymen to refer doubtful cases to the regional medical officers. This should be the work of the panel doctor, unless the Minister is prepared to argue that a layman is more qualified than a doctor to do this class of work. I find on pages 10 and 11 of the National Health Insurance Report a list of the cases upon which the sick visitor is expected to report. Paragraph 38 states that:
Societies will, as a result of their own experience, be aware of the usual duration of incapacity due to the commoner illnesses, and subject to consideration of the information gained from a sick visitor's report, or as a result of communicating with the member's doctor, they should not hesitate to refer to the regional medical staff claimants whose incapacity is certified as continuing beyond the expected period.
Therefore, it will be seen that the layman has to decide in these cases. He has to call in the doctor and he has to decide,
after a cursory glance at the patient, whether he should report to the regional medical officer or not. I think that is a most fantastic scheme. This attitude seems to suggest to me that the medical service under the National Health Insurance Act requires to be strengthened at the source, and it looks as if the doctors are unable to carry out their duties efficiently because of the fear of losing their panel patients. There would be a good deal less malingering if only the doctors had the courage to do their work properly. In regard to eases awaiting admission to the hospital, the report says:
In cases of hernia and similar chronic conditions, the delay in admission to the hospital is often protracted, and as many of these persons are found to be not incapable of work during the waiting period, reference should be made at a very early date if it is known that the patient is awaiting admission to hospital, and is not confined to bed.
With regard to post-operation cases, the report states:
Members who have been operated on in hospital should be referred after a suitable period of convalescence. The time required for convalescence will vary, of course, with the nature of the operation, and the general condition of the patient, but reference will usually be desirable on the expiration of four weeks after discharge from hospital in cases in which the sick visitor's report (which will always first be obtained) does not indicate that this course would be inexpedient.
The person undergoing the operation has to wait for the sick visitor to decide whether he ought to go to work, or whether he should remain on the funds a little longer. The position is an impossible one, and, whether we like it or not, the Minister ought to come down definitely and say whether the Government are satisfied with this service or not. I suggest that the Minister should consider the suggestion made from time to time by members of the Labour movement and many of the approved societies for a long time past that the time has arrived for establishing a national medical service which shall include the dependants of insured persons.
There is a matter upon which I would like the Minister to give us the fullest possible information, and that is the effect which the Economy Act, 1926, has had upon the recent valuations of approved societies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K.
Wood) frequently criticises the Government in regard to this particular work. It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that the financial loss under the Economy Act has been no less than £4,700,000. The proportion of the expenditure of approved societies which has been met from the Exchequer was 40 per cent. in 1921, and 17.6 per cent. in 1930–31. There was no excuse for this raiding of the funds of the approved societies. I find in a statement made to the Press when the Economy Bill was before the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich stated:

"(1) That no existing benefits would be interfered with.
(2) That extension of benefits would still be possible.
(3) That in all probability the amount of the surpluses, especially on the third valuation, would remain undiminished."
Nobody but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich could have imagined such a thing, having regard to the fact that the funds of approved societies were to be reduced by £4,700,000 per annum. In paragraph 31 of the first report of the Actuarial Committee it was estimated that societies representing 10 per cent. of the insured population would be eventually thrust into deficiency by the proposals of the Economy Bill. We know now that certain societies have not been able to continue their additional benefits, and it is extremely doubtful at the next valuation whether there will be any additional benefit at all as far as some of these societies are concerned.
The reduction in State grants and additional charge for medical benefit thrown upon approved societies amounts to £4,700,000 per annum, and, obviously, that must make a great difference to the approved societies and to additional benefits, and I ask the Minister at the earliest possible moment to restore the amount which was stolen from approved societies by the last Government. I ask the Minister to face this question and face the medical profession, and let us have a system that will really be in the interests of the insured persons of this country.

Mr. MAITLAND: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis) in his references to the last Administration, but,
as one who was not a Member of the House in 1926, and who, therefore, has no direct responsibility for what happened then, I may remind the hon. Member and the House that, while it is easy to say now that what was done in 1926 was wrong, it is just as well, if we are going to discuss this matter accurately, that we should take into account the circumstances of 1926. In order to do that, we must go back to the origin of our National Insurance system. The basis of that system was that there should be contributions by the three parties, the State, the employers and the employés, and, on the actuarial calculations which were made at the time when the scheme first came into operation, it was computed that certain benefits could be given. Going forward from the origin of the scheme, from 1911 to 1926, it was then found that those computations were correct, and that the State, which was one of the three parties to the system of insurance, and which, by way of experiment, had agreed in 1911 to make certain contributions, was in a position to say that the scheme had reached such a position that it was possible for the State to reduce its contribution.
It is a matter of argument whether or not the State should be the only party whose contribution should be reduced, but one effect of the State reducing its contribution to the Insurance Fund was that it had thereby other funds available for social services and for the general purposes of the State. In my judgment, it is not a question whether, to use a word which is not very pleasant, but which the hon. Member used, funds were stolen by the Conservative administration. I would point out that the decision to alter the basis of the contribution by the State was a decision of Parliament, and I have no doubt that at the time the whole of the circumstances were taken into account. To-day there is quite a different position. If the hon. Member objects to the State at any time altering its quota of contribution to the system of insurance, that would mean that what Parliament did in 1911 must stand for all time, and I am sure that even the hon. Member would not accept a proposition of that kind. It is always possible for Parliament to review the situation with regard to National Health Insurance or
any other matter, and to say whether or not it will continue a certain payment, or reduce it, or make such changes as Parliament at the time thinks proper.
As I understand the situation to-day, however, it is not so much a question whether the contribution by the State or by the employer or the employé is right or wrong. The question which arises is that there has been, and is likely to be, a very heavy sickness experience, much heavier than was contemplated when the scheme was put into operation. There is this heavy claim upon the National Health Insurance Fund, and there is also the difficulty, which hon. Members must acknowledge, that a large volume of unemployment involves, not only an added burden on the National Health Insurance Fund in additional claims, but a corresponding reduction in the income of the societies concerned. That is the problem which Parliament will have to face, and Parliament will have to decide, it may be this Session or it may be in a later Session, whether or not the system of insurance as we understand it has to be further supplemented by State aid.
I would remind the hon. Member for Southampton that Parliament in other ways has shown its concern for the stability of our National Health Insurance Fund. Members in all quarters of the House are very anxious that we should maintain at its fullest capacity and its greatest usefulness the National Health Insurance system, and every Member of the House, I care not where he sits, is desirous that there should be no question of the National Health Insurance Fund getting into anything approaching the very deplorable condition into which the Unemployment Insurance Fund has got. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in his place. It was very largely due to his pertinacity and the pertinacity of his colleague the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that last Christmas, just before the vacation, we had the National Health (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, which, as has been pointed out, extended benefit to perhaps the most deserving section of the insured community, and I think that the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Camlachie may well
claim credit for having compelled the Government to introduce that legislation, which was favourably received in all quarters of the House, and was put through very expeditiously, because everyone realised its necessity. At the time when that legislation was passed, as a result of which the State was to make certain contributions on behalf of people who were no longer in a position themselves to pay, amounting to 36 contributions for a year, the Minister was not in a position to say anything with regard to the cost. It was not known how many people would be affected, or how much would be required of the State to make good the deficiency. The estimates varied, I think, from £80,000 to £130,000, and the numbers from 60,000 to 100,000. I should like to as kthe Minister if he is now able to give us any information with regard to the number of people affected by that Act, and as to what steps are to be taken to deal with the same situation which will arise, unless something is done in the meantime, on the 31st December, this year.
Another point on which I would also like the Minister to be good enough to give us some information is as to the question, which is of interest to every Member of the House, of maternity and child welfare. The statement of the Minister, when last this Vote was before the House, that there was a toll of something like 3,000 women who died in childbirth every year, is an appalling record, and I, for one, should be very glad to know what steps are being taken in that matter. One would expect that the Minister of Health, no matter to what party he may belong, would be very anxiously concerned as to the gravity of such a position, and I am sure we shall welcome any news that he can give us to the effect that this problem has been taken up by the local authorities, who are very greatly concerned. We shall be very glad to know that some of the recommendations at any rate of the Departmental Committee which considered this question have been put into effect.
I want now to deal with a matter which has not as yet been dealt with. We are discussing the Vote for the Ministry of Health, and, although the activities of the Department are so varied and interesting, it seems to me that we should pay some attention to the Vote itself.
We are discussing, not only the many matters which are involved in the work of the Department, but a survey of the cost. I remember the Minister saying, when last this Vote was before the House, that his Department was inevitably a Department that spends money, and he went on to say—this is his phrase, and not mine—that the Department would be described by one newspaper, which he named, as a spendthrift Department. He was careful to add that he believed that the expenditure incurred by his Department was expenditure which was wisely incurred, and which resulted in increased benefit and well-being for the country. It might be suggested that the doctrine that his Department is inevitably a spending Department, and certainly the suggestion which he himself has made that this country could afford to spend whatever it desired to spend, is a very dangerous doctrine, and I am sure he will forgive me if for a few moments I look at one of his Estimates with a certain amount of kindly suspicion.
The Minister, in introducing the Estimate, referred to the fact that the net sum involved by his Department was £19,600,000, and he pointed out that that represented an increase of £392,000. He immediately went on to emphasise that the increase was largely accounted for by the increased subsidy for housing. It is very difficult for the average Member of this House to keep himself informed as to the cost of the activities of any Department, no matter how well disposed and industrious he may be, but I have tried, so far as I have been able, to find out something as to the cost of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and, if the House will bear with me, I will submit the results of my, perhaps, rather scanty activities for its consideration. I find that the administration expenses—salaries, wages, travelling expenses, and so on—amount, in found figures, to £2,000,000. Housing grants account for £12,750,000. The National Health Insurance Fund takes £6,000,000. That is for England and Wales. Then we have what seems to be a comparatively small sum of £110,000, when one considers that it covers grants for sanatoria, training of midwives and health visitors, grants to port sanitary authorities, and a few other items of that kind. That is a total of £20,750,000. The figure mentioned by the Minister was £19,600,000, and the
difference of £1,200,000 or so is accounted for by appropriations-in-aid.
This expenditure, however, of £20,750,000 docs not represent the complete picture. For instance, the Registrar-General's Office cost £328,000, and I would like to know if I am correct in assuming that the cost of the census this year is nearly £250,000. Then there are Old Age Pensions, for which no less a sum that £38,250,000 is required; the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions scheme accounts for £10,000,000; and the Scottish Department of Health for £2,750,000; so we see that we are discussing, not an expenditure of £20,750,000, but these other items as well. Disregarding the Ministry of Labour Votes, it would appear, so far as I have been able to ascertain, comparing like with like, that there is an increased expenditure of £3,000,000 as compared with the previous year, and that year was £6,000,000 more than the year 1929–30. Having regard to the vast amount of money which we are spending every year in respect of pensions, I would like to submit this point to the Minister. His Department is responsible, as I have said, for the very considerable sum of £38,000,000 in the one case and £10,000,000 in the other case this year. Would it be possible for the House to have a statement covering, say, the next five years, showing the actual cash liabilities to which we are committed?
7.0 p.m.
We hear a great deal on all sides about economy. If we are committed by Statute to certain obligations, the sooner we know what they are the better. I, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she will issue a statement showing, as far as possible, the liabilities of the State in respect to pensions so far as her Department is concerned, The present Government are, of course, not entirely responsible, as preceding Governments have their share in it, but we are to have an opportunity in the Recess of perusing the report of the Economy Committee and, in order that we may better appreciate that report, it would be useful if Members had in their possession particulars of the statutory commitments of the State in respect to pensions. Another great commitment is that on housing, and I would very much appreciate, as I am sure would other hon. Members, a
simple Statement showing the contribution which the State has made in respect to housing. I see in the last report of the Ministry of Health a figure of something like £1,000,000,000 in respect to certain housing expenditure. I would like a statement of this expenditure, including subsidies, grants to local authorities, and loans to owner occupiers. I am sure that hon. Members would be amazed if we had in simple tabular form—not a statement prepared in a partisan way to show that one Government has done more than another, but a straightforward statement showing what the nation has contributed to the housing problem in the last 10 or 11 years or since the end of the War. It would be very interesting and instructive to all Members of the House.
There is one other point I wish to make. I have taken the trouble of comparing the cost of the administration of this Department with past years. I do not like taking the Estimates of the previous year, because they have a very vicious habit of becoming the Estimates for the following year, but I picked up haphazard in the Library the Estimates of 1924–25, and I thought it would be a fair test to see to what extent the administrative expenses of the Department have increased in seven years. I found that the administrative expenditure of the Ministry of Health in the current year's Estimates was £1,982,000, whereas in 1924–25 it was £1,337,000, which shows an increase of £645,000 or nearly 48 per cent. I shall not trouble the House with the figures with regard to the administration of the Welsh Board of Health for the same period, but I shall give the percentage. The House will find that there is an increase in the cost of administration of the Welsh Board of Health of 60 per cent., and in the case of the Scottish Board of Health of 47 per cent.
Those are figures and increases that ought to give us pause. I am not putting them forward in any niggardly or parsimonious way, but merely for this purpose. If we are increasing expenditure over a period of seven years by something like 50 per cent., we are entitled to say that we ought to have increased efficiency, or improved services, or more services. It may be that the administration of the Ministry of Health can justify
this increased expenditure by showing that we have not only increased efficiency in the Department but improved services and more services. This may be the fact, but the House is entitled to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that this increased expenditure in the last seven years is expenditure which has been wise and reasonable. He has a multiplicity of duties to perform, and it is impossible to expect any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to pay attention only to the cost of administration, but I should be glad if the Minister of Health could give us any information he has as to whether the increased expenditure on the administration of his Department has been wise expenditure and has resulted in improved services.

Mr. PALMER: The figures in the Ministry of Health Vote are such that every Member of the House ought to face up to the position whether, in fact, they ought not to be more. I do not know of any Vote in this House which can be applied to greater and more humanising purposes than this Vote of the Ministry of Health. If I wanted to give in a sentence the epitome of all the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon, it would be something like thtis—instead of it being £19,600,000, it ought to be increased by £4,700,000 which failed to be appropriated to these funds as an effect of the 1926 Economy Act. Much has been said this afternoon about the anticipated difficulties of approved societies when they get their valuation returns out for the last quinquennium; much has been said about increased sickness and disability experience and of the heavy drain on the funds of approved societies. I share the apprehensions in that respect, and look round for the causes of it. You cannot rule out the fact that unemployment has a two-fold bearing on the state of funds of approved societies. You get no contribution when the man or woman is not working, and you get the standard of life in the home lowered to such an extent that it tends to increase the prevalence of sickness.
Taking that into consideration, one must consider the effect of the reduction in the appropriation. I would be disposed at this late stage to cut our losses, and try to forget the iniquity of taking
some £2,750,000 a year out of the appropriation to the funds of approved societies, which was done under the 1926 Economy Act, if it were not for the fact that to-day we are living in the same atmosphere of 1926 with regard to economy. We are having committees appointed and inquiries on the question of economy, and coming out with reports which can only postulate one thing, that the funds are in a parlous state, that we must either increase the contribution of the members or we must cut the benefits. The House of Commons must make up its mind that there is another way of meeting this difficulty. If the amount which was appropriated formerly to approved society funds was restored, we should not be in this position of having to talk about cutting the benefits to any section of approved society members.
We were favoured a little while since a report of the Government with Actuary in connection with the position of unemployment. He, quite properly, reminded us that these two Acts went side by side. He said in his report:
Both schemes had a common origin in the National Insurance Act of 1911. As originally designed, the State grant to unemployment insurance was one-fourth of the total, while in health insurance the State had to bear two-ninths of the expenditure in the case of men and one-fourth in the case of women and, in addition, the cost of central administration.
I invite the House to go back to that as being fundamental. The burden of all the speeches this afternoon has been apprehension as to the solvency of approved society funds. Every speaker, without exception, has agreed that we, who represent approved societies and who have the knowledge and understanding of the position, want at all costs to avoid a descent on the slippery slope down which the Unemployment Insurance Fund has gone owing to abnormal experience. The first thing the Ministry and the Government have to do is to face up to putting this fund back again on its original basis for solvency before they talk about cutting the benefit of approved society members. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, I quote again from the report of Sir Alfred Watson, the Government Actuary, who crystallises the position thus:
The total Exchequer contribution in respect of health insurance for 1920–21 was £10.3 million, or 40 per cent., while in 1930–31 the total Exchequer contribution was £6.7 million, or 17.6 per cent.
I want to emphasise the fact that we stand in a different position as regards the administration and solvency of this fund from that in which we stand in relation to the unemployment position. Happily, there is, in regard to national health insurance funds, a very close administration of those funds in well-defined groups which are called approved societies. Each society vies with the other to do the best it possibly can for its members and to conserve its funds and administer them properly and sympathetically, but I know of no approved society, or group of societies, which would do other than follow out the original conception underlying the Act, that benefits should tend to increase rather than diminish. We all remember the original slogan of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) of "9d. for 4d.," the conception being that, when you are getting benefits to-day at their minimum, they must tend to increase, and they will increase. There will be additional benefits. I am very jealous lest we should go back on the covenant we have made in respect to National Health Insurance benefits.
A great deal has been said to-day about the doctors. I should be the last man to want in a general way to say any-thing derogatory of the doctors, but they should feel, no less than the administrators of approved societies, their responsibility for establishing the soundness of the scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) when he says in scathing terms to his own trade union confreres, "I am not standing for the man who is monkeying about." There is a genuine feeling that we ought, also to say we are not going to stand for the doctor who is monkeying about and helping people to get benefits to which they are not entitled. I should like to feel that the doctors are with us in this matter. When I think of the doctors and their methods of certification, I cannot help thinking of the experience which is patent to every Member of the House as to the difference between a doctor's
certificate when I want to establish a claim under the Pensions Act and the type of certificate you get when it is a case of a claim for benefit under an approved society. There is a wide gap there. It seems to me that the medical profession can do, under the terms of certification, exactly what you are prepared to pay them well enough to do.
I hate to think that the medical profession are mercenary, but I cannot help feeling that they are a bit. I do not know whether we ought not to get a method where we pay them on results and give them a special bonus for declaring people off, or whether we can get a similar code instituted to that which applies in a pension case that we want to fight. In any case, the remedy for the position and for the risk of insolvency of approved societies, whether in bulk or whether in respect of any particular membership, lies first in the necessity of the State keeping faith on the original basis of the scheme. The hon. Member for Westhoughton referred to schemes in other countries and to the difficulty which is common in most countries. I would say, with some experience, that if we had the restoration of the amount of money that has not come into appropriation since the 1926 Act, it would make all the difference in the world.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) talked about the case of married women. He even hinted that approved societies were up against it to such an extent that they would have to adopt some other method. I want to put the plain question to the Minister whether there is any urge from his Department, whether he contemplates making any order or regulation or promoting any Bill to degrade the benefits of members of approved societies? I feel very keenly on this point that, as long as the State is not doing all it originally convenanted to do, there is no case for cutting benefits. I think much more can be done by closer administration. Much more can be done, as has been shown, by reference to the regional medical officer. There is something wrong when you refer 100 people to the medical officer, and half of them take fright and declare off. Is the Minister prescribing any method for referring these cases? I agree with the
hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis) that it is not good enough to treat all members on a level basis and say, if they have been on so long, it must be a case to be referred to the regional medical officer. There ought to be some justification. I do not think I agree with my hon. Friend that the sickness visitor's report is perhaps quite good enough as a ground for referring a case to the regional medical officer. I think there should be some better basis than that to warrant sending so many cases. The number has certainly gone up with a tremendous leap. It has jumped from 113,000 in 1922 to over 500,000 at present.
I hope that we shall not degenerate, so far as the administration of National Health Insurance is concerned, along the lines of degeneration which set in with regard to Unemployment Insurance when the Exchanges treated every man as one who had to be challenged. It will be much better to administer the fund in a proper manner, and to assume that the title stands good until we see some evidence that it is not good. I am all for the urge that every measure of co-operation should be made under this Act before you get to the point of cutting benefits. It is contemplated by some societies, especially in regard to married women, that there shall be some degradation from the standard of benefits. I want to urge the Minister to take what steps may be necessary to obviate approved societies having to take such a step as this, because the moves are undoubtedly with him and his Department if the original idea of additional benefits and improved benefits is to obtain.
Many reasons have been adduced as to the causes of increased sickness. There is one which has not been mentioned which, I think, would obtain very largely, with regard to disability, at any rate. The improvement in mortality has a cumulative effect in increasing the number of disabled people on the fund as the years go by. The older a man gets, up to a certain point, the more the cumulative effect will apply, I should imagine, on increased sickness and on disablement Unlike most insurance, it pays approved societies if people die at the right time, because that is a release of funds and a release of liabilities.

Captain GUNSTON: Surely, if people die, you lose their contributions. Why is the society better off?

Mr. PALMER: Experience will show that you are better minus the contributions than minus the liability of paying the disablement benefit which obtains in a good many cases except, of course, that we have the limit of age under the Acts now reduced by the incidence of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, which brings it down to 60.
I should like to say a word about arrears. There is no doubt that the approved societies' funds have suffered. The fund has been well administered, but the preceding Chancellor of the Exchequer could rob it, and even the present Minister is imposing on it the cost of the growing arrears in respect of unemployment. Everyone concerned with approved society membership throughout the whole series of prolongation Acts from 1928 to the present Act was expecting from the Ministry of Health some return to meet the cost of those arrears. The position is still obscure, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what he really proposes to do to help the approved society with respect to the cost of the arrears in reference to members who have been unemployed. These are all points bearing upon the solvency of the fund. All Members of the House are proud of the fact that the general position of the National Health Insurance Fund is as good as it is compared with the parlous position in which the unemployment fund now stands. Before we cut benefits we should explore every avenue for keeping the fund in its present state of solvency. I notice in going over the details of the Estimates that while increases are made, and quite properly made, in regard to housing, reductions are made in respect of the amounts for appropriation in respect of approved societies, I hope that when the Minister replies he will give the House an assurance that he will, in his administrative capacity and otherwise, see that benefits to all approved society members, women included, are conserved and improved, and that the necessary reliefs are given to approved societies.

Miss RATHBONE: Before we leave the very depressing though interesting subject which we have discussed all the
afternoon, I should like to say a word about the excessive claims of married women. I recognise that that is a grave new phenomenon which requires careful inquiry. I should like to put forward one explanation. I do not suppose that it is a complete explanation, but I am quite sure that it is a possible one. In every time of depression in industry, when there is privation in households and members of households are out of work, it is the married woman who feels the pinch. Anyone whose social experience does not enable him to verify that remark may refer to Mr. Rowntree's study of poverty in York which is one of the greatest descriptions of poverty-stricken conditions ever produced in this country. He calls attention to the fact that wherever there is unemployment, low wages and difficulty, it is the married woman who feels the pinch, for the very obvious reason that she is the person who has to expend the family income and make it go as far as possible, and naturally, being the person with the responsibility, she leaves herself until the last. The decreased state of health of married women through that cause is one of the reasons for the increase in their claims.
I rose to draw attention to quite a different sort of wastage from that which we have been discussing this afternoon. I wish to speak of the wastage going on in housing subsidies. The Vote with which We are dealing to-night accounts for over £12,750,000 spent on housing grants, about £1,000,000 more than last year, and it is a steadily rising increase. It is a unique time for considering that question for two reasons. First of all, the Greenwood Act is a year old, and I suppose that local authorities hitherto have been almost entirely absorbed in considering the destruction of insanitary property, the acquisition of land and the erection of new houses. Now is the time when they should face up to the problem of what they are going to do with the new houses when they are built, and how they are going to see that they get into the hands of the persons for whom, they were intended. I suggest that there are two factors which make this a unique time for trying to see that housing subsidies in future shall benefit those for
whom they were intended by Parliament, and to get back to decreased but economic rents.
The two factors are, first of all, that building costs have come down so considerably that economic rents are very little more at present than the full subsidised rents fixed some years ago under earlier Housing Acts. The second factor is, that under the Greenwood Act a set of admirable regulations have been issued by the Ministry which lay down the principle, I believe for the first time, that it is the clear intention of Parliament that the grants under the new Act shall benefit those who need rent relief, and that rent relief shall be given only to those who need it, and only for as long as they need it. Presumably that is the clear intention of the Act. It is the duty of the Ministry not only to lay it down, but to see that it is carried out.
I would suggest that the same intention that housing subsidies should only benefit those who have an economic need for them is really implicit in all housing Acts. The very title "Housing of the Working Classes Acts," surely, implies that the economic status of the tenant is supposed to be a factor, and that Parliament did not really intend to grant the subsidy all these years by Act after Act merely in order that relatively well-paid people should enjoy a trip to lovely Lucerne, or should be able to indulge in the purchase of that little motor car on which their hearts were set by economising in their rents at the expense of the public purse. Notoriously that has been the actual effect of a large part of the housing subsidies in the past. Now that the demand for public economy is so imperative, and also at the same time it is being more generally recognised that we must deal with the needs of those tenants who are still living in foetid slums or over-crowded houses because they cannot afford the rents of houses previously put up, is it not worth considering how we can combine the two policies, first, of ensuring that the subsidies only benefit those for whom they are intended, and, at the same time, seeing that even a larger and larger supply of houses is provided of the kind adapted to the needs of those who most need housing relief?
I will show how the circumstances of the present time can be made to apply in securing those two ends. Let us assume that some municipality nerves itself to take the bold course of deciding that in future the rent of all the new municipal houses shall be the full economic rent and that the subsidy shall be used for the sole purpose of granting rebates upon rent to individual tenants on the ground of their needs. It is not an extravagant assumption, because quite recently, by a unanimous resolution, the Manchester Corporation requested its housing committee to consider that very proposition and to report upon it. Housing rents vary considerably in different localities and for different types of houses on different sites in the same locality, and it is difficult to generalise. I will take a simple instance to show how it would work out if the Manchester proposal were carried out. The rents of Manchester were lowered quite recently to meet the change in economic circumstances and the lower building costs. At present the rent of an ordinary A3 three-bedroomed kitchen house, I understand, varies from 8s. 6d. to 10s. 3d. net, but the vast majority of houses are of the more expensive type. Last March the Ministry informed me that the full economic net rent of a three-bedroomed kitchen house of this type was 10s. 6d., that is to say, only 3d. a week higher than the higher rate of rent charged in Manchester for the houses erected with the benefit of the Wheatley subsidy. Hence if Manchester took this step of restoring economic rents, it could be done with no great shock to public opinion or breach in established custom. Those relatively well-off people whom Manchester has been accustomed to allow to occupy those new houses would find that they were not much more highly rented than their neighbours who manage to obtain possession of a municipal house built at a more expensive period. The full amount of the subsidy of those new houses would then be available to meet the needs of the really poor tenants who require rent relief.
How could this be done? The Greenwood Act and the regulations under it expressly contemplate that the subsidy should be used in giving grants to individual tenants, based either on the number of their children or upon the amount
of their income, or upon a combination of both factors. It also contemplates other alternatives, such as charging what are called differential rents, that is, renting certain groups of new houses at one rent and other groups at a rather higher rent. I want to suggest three things, first of all, that the method of rent rebates attached to individual tenants and not to bricks and mortar is not merely an alternative way of carrying out the golden rule of the Greenwood regulations, that rent relief shall be given only to those who need it and only for as long as they need. It is the only way of carrying out that golden rule. Secondly, I suggest that the subsidy to be used in that way shall not be merely the difference between the Wheatley subsidy and the Greenwood subsidy, a paltry average sum of 1s. per house, but that the rebate system should apply to all the new houses under whatever Act they are built, and that it should absorb the whole amount of the subsidy. Thirdly, that policy should not merely be indicated as possible in the Ministry of Health's regulations, but it should be pressed upon local authorities as the only way in which local authorities can carry out what the Ministry has declared to be the clear intention of the Act.
Take the first point. I say that it is the only way of carrying out that golden rule. Supposing a housing authority adopts the plan of differential rents, and supposing they say, "Yes, we are going to see that houses go to those who really need rent relief, but we will do it by charging low rents to poor tenants," and they select their tenants on the ground of poverty. Take a tenant whose income is £2 10s. a week and who happens to have three children of school age. He is a very suitable tenant to have the benefit of a low-rented house. Six years hence that tenant may have received a rise in wages, and his three children may all be wage-earners and his income may be quite easily anything from £5 to £6 a week. Clearly this would not be a needy case for rent relief. That is not an abnormal case, but an ordinary and usual case. The truth is that the factor of family dependency is a more important factor in determining capability to pay rent than either of the other two factors of rates of wages, or employment and unemployment.
All three factors, family dependency, rates of wages, and employment and unemployment are continually changing, so that no system which merely selected tenants originally on admission on grounds of poverty can possibly economise in the use of a subsidy. Again, sup-posing it is assumed, as some local authorities prefer to do, that the mere fact that a tenant, has been a victim of an over-crowded or an insanitary slum is in itself a proof that he needs rent relief. Nothing could be more untrue or dangerous. A recent inquiry conducted by the Liverpool University into the conditions of the working people of Liverpool revealed this rather remarkable fact, that of all the over-crowded tenants of Liverpool houses, only 30 per cent. of the families were below the poverty line. Over 50 per cent. were so far above the poverty line that it might reasonably be assumed that they could afford to pay considerably higher rents than they were paying. Most surprising of all, almost the largest group of seriously overcrowded tenants were those whose families could claim two or more wage-earners in regular work. The explanation is obvious. The families where there tends to be the most over-crowding are families where there are several adult children. Yet those families who have grown up in poverty frequently cling to their slum or overcrowded tenements because they have become accustomed to have a large margin of pocket money made available by paying low rent, or because they want to live near their work or because of a mixture of both motives. That is not a preference that ought to be indulged at the public expense.
The only way of carrying out the golden rule of the Ministry is the method of rebates attached to the individual tenant. How can the money be used in that way? If the amount used for rebates is small—the difference between the Wheatley and the Greenwood subsidy is 1s. per week per house—the amount will be negligible and the economy will also be negligible. But supposing the standard rents are fixed at the full economic rental, we shall have available an additional subsidy amounting to 3s. 9d. in the case of a Wheatley house and 43. 9d. or 5s, a
week in the case of a Greenwood house, an amount sufficient to allow rebates varying from 1s., 2s., to even 2s. 6d., the test being the size of income per head of the family, after deducting the amount of rent. One of the advantages of this plan would be that it would make it possible, without allowing any sponging on housing subsidies, to permit, as has been done in the past, a considerable number of tenants who have been living under undesirable conditions, who are not extremely poor and do not require rent relief, to pass into the new houses and when they do so, their rent will automatically adjust itself to the level of their capacity to pay. In other words, the difference between a flat rate subsidy attached to the house and a rebate granted to the individual tenant is that the same sum of money can be used over and over again as the particular tenant ceases to need it, and it can be transferred to a different tenant or a different house.
May I deal briefly with the objections that I have heard raised by members of different local authorities to this plan? The first objection is that the grant of rebates to individual tenants on the ground of the number of dependants or poverty, or both, is a measure of public assistance that is unsuitable for a housing authority, and that such rebates ought to be given, if at all, by the public assistance committee. That argument shows such muddle-headed thinking, that it almost makes one despair of those who use it. What is any form of housing subsidy but public assistance granted to an individual tenant. Bricks and mortar cannot benefit by subsidy. It must be the tenants who benefit. The fact that the subsidy in past years has been regarded as attached to the house and not to the tenant has been one of the most vicious parts of the whole system, because it has confused the public mind. It has enabled many people to think that if they accept a corporation house, subsidised out of public money, when they are perfectly well able to purchase or to rent a house for themselves, they are not, as they are in fact, cheating the poor and using money which was never intended for them, but that they are doing something perfectly legitimate. It
is the duty of the Ministry to present to the country more clearly than they have done hitherto the right view in regard to this matter, and not merely to state, in rather vague terms, that it is permissible to use the subsidy for individual rebates. They have laid down the rule that it is the clear intention of Parliament that relief should be given only to those who need it, and they ought to see that the local authorities obey that rule and adhere to it. If the local authorities decline to adopt a method which really does ensure that, it ought to be in the power of the Ministry to see that the local authorities do obey the clear intention of Parliament.
There is another respect in which I feel that the Minister ought to give us more assurance than in the past as to what steps he has taken to prevent the waste of housing subsidies. When the Greenwood Act was passing through the House, I pointed out the grave danger that there seemed to be of profiteering among landowners because of the system adopted of granting a high subsidy where houses were built on land of a specially costly character. I see already in connection with certain local authorities that there is a strong tendency on the part of the landowners to charge excessive prices for land because they see quite plainly that the local authorities have a diminished inducement to buy land cheap because they can obtain a higher rate of subsidy if they have to pay above a certain price for the land. Not long ago there was a case in Liverpool where the city council passed and sent up to the Ministry of Health a proposal for paying over £2 a yard for a certain site, not a very eligible site in my opinion, on which to erect a block of tenement dwellings. I am glad that the Ministry of Health, this extravagant Socialist Ministry, turned down as too extravagant a proposal put forward by the strongly Conservative Liverpool City Council. The result was that after considerable squeezing the landlord offered his land at 10s. a yard less, a very considerable saving was effected. I would ask the Minister to give us an assurance as to what steps he is taking to economise in the use of the subsidy. He knows very well the great need there is for urging local authorities to greater activity in securing a larger number of new houses.
I wish I could believe that half as much scientific thought and attention and pressure from the Ministry was being given to the question of urging the local authorities to make good use of the subsidies that they have and to see that they are not wasted by giving them for the benefit of people who do not need them and using them for the more structural aspects of the housing problem.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The first part of the Debate was principally devoted to a discussion of the question of sickness benefit paid by approved societies. Several hon. Members have touched upon various other points. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) asked me why our expenses had gone up so formidably during the past seven years Both sides of the House were responsible for the increased expenditure. First of all, we had the Wheatley Act which necessitated considerable expenditure in increased staff. Then further officers were needed under the Conservative Pensions Act of 1925. We have since developed that Act, and on each occasion whenever we have made developments in regard to pensions or housing, an increase in the staff of the Ministry has been necessary. The hon. Member for Faversham also asked me whether I could make a clear statement in regard to the future course of pensions and housing. Both those subjects have been dealt with in reports and Estimates, which I shall be glad to hand to the hon. Member.
The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), in her very interesting and suggestive discourse, urged that the local authorities should ensure that the poorest tenants were helped. It has been the object of every Minister of Health worthy of the name, and it ought to be the object of every local authority, to see that houses are provided at rents suitable for the very poorest of the population. That is the central problem in housing, and one to which we have devoted our very best attention. Each locality has its own problem to solve. It has to cater for its own class of population, and it has its own differences to adjust as to the different classes of houses required. It would be highly undesirable at this stage to force local authorities into one particular
line of action. All the proposals that are put before the Ministry are considered on their merits, and such criticism or advice is given to the local authority as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The developments and experiments that are taking place in Manchester, to which the hon. Lady referred, are very interesting, and I hope that we shall have similar interesting experiments in different parts of the country, from which perhaps a general policy will be evolved. At the present time we must give the local authorities considerable latitude.
I come to the question of the approved societies and sickness benefit. I suppose we look upon this matter from slightly different angles. There are a good many angles from which we can view the problem. The administration of national health insurance is a very important part of the functions of the Ministry of Health, and it is our duty to watch the health of the population and to make every allowance for the increased sickness in time of unemployment. The hon. Lady was right when she said that times of unemployment and stress pressed most hardly on the mother in the home. In considering this problem, we have to take into account the point of view of the insured person, the professional view of the doctor and also the fact that the insurance societies have their eyes fixed on the sole interests of their members. I am not saying that these different views are irreconcilable, but they do need to be balanced against each other.
8.0 p.m.
I think that the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) was a little hard on the medical gentleman to whom he referred. The doctor who wrote "I.D.K." on the certificate is a person I regard with some liking after all. It was very much the same thing as when a general practitioner says that he requires a second opinion. I am certain, knowing a little about the society to which the hon. Member for Mitcham referred, that if that certificate came in, it was received in exactly that sense as a request for a second opinion, and that the second opinion was hurried to the bedside of the patient. Again, I cannot see that there is the slightest harm in the visitor asking for a second opinion. When the visitor calls to inquire into cases certified as colds, chills or debility and thinks further inquiry is necessary,
I cannot see that there is anything in the least derogatory even to the strictest medical etiquette for the visitor to say that he would like a second opinion. All that happens in such a case is that the regional medical officer is brought in. Of course, the doctors have their points of view and their susceptibilities. Then there are the business susceptibilities of the insurance societies. Then there is the point of view of the approved societies, who, I understand, when they drink the health of their members do it with these words, "A healthy life and a sudden death." It is the business of the Ministry of Health to try to assimilate all these points of view, and to judge with the utmost possible care all the evidence that comes before us. After long and careful reports we have come to the conclusion that, making every allowance for the effects of unemployment and depression, the whole of the sickness claims made on the approved societies cannot be altogether accounted for by these causes.
The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) paid us a great compliment when he occupied so great a part of his speech in reading long extracts from our report, and this relieves me from the necessity of going over it in too great detail. He pointed out in our own words—and very excellent words they are—that the incidence of sickness showed some anomalies. If we were dealing with general bad health, one would expect the older part of the population to show it most, but in the case of young people the increase of sickness is greater than in the old. You would also expect more prolonged illnesses, whereas, as a matter of fact, you find that the larger number of increases are in the case of short illnesses. Our last circular went out on 31st May last. We are holding conferences with the approved societies. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) asked what further steps we were about to take, but as the circular only went out in May last, it is rather early to suggest any further measures. The question of the central fund has been referred to during the Debate. The central fund is
not in a very good position. It reached a maximum of over £1,500,000, but it has since been seriously depleted owing to the necessity of having to make grants to societies who were in a deficiency through causes beyond their control. That is a very serious matter, and the financial position of the fund is engaging the earnest attention of the Minister. It is possible that a levy may be one of the subjects to be discussed, but whether it will be necessary to make a levy is a matter for further consideration. It is being anxiously discussed, but I cannot give any more definite information at the moment.

Mr. PALMER: Are we to understand that the levy is to be something in the nature of a pool?

Miss LAWRENCE: No. The third valuation is now almost completed, and we expect the full report will be issued in the autumn. We have not yet a complete analysis of the third valuation, but, so far as it has gone, the figures are coming in rather better than were anticipated. At the same time, a number of societies, particularly those with a separate fund for women, show that their disposable surplus has been reduced.

Mr. BROOKE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us something more about the levy before she leaves that subject?

Miss LAWRENCE: There is no levy yet. It is one of the possibilities we are discussing with the approved societies. With regard to the third valuation, it is true to say that a number of societies have found their disposable surplus reduced, and some of them have been compelled to curtail the additional benefits they have previously provided. It is clear that the financial basis of the insurance scheme will need careful examination, and it is a matter which will have the attention of the Minister in the near future. With regard to the prolongation of insurance, we are now in conference with the approved societies, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce a decision on the matter very soon.
I think I have dealt with most of the points which have been touched upon during the Debate. Approved societies, like the rest of the community, are feeling the combined strain of unemployment and trade depression. But they are giving
the matter their very careful attention, and it is hoped that it may be possible to improve their administration in some minor points.

Dr. MORRIS-JONHS: Will the hon. Lady deal with the question of research upon which I made some observations earlier in the Debate?

Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member referred, I believe, to a very recent discovery with regard to cancer. That is being, I understand, discussed by the Cancer Committee, and obviously I can say nothing of value on that matter at the present moment.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The House is indebted to my right bon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) for raising the question of general interest which has been the subject of Our discussion this afternoon. Everybody has their own point of view about it. The discussion has been interesting for several reasons, partly because it has given an opportunity for the expression of views which have thrown a very interesting side light on some political opinions. For instance, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that the increased claims upon the societies were illustrative of the fact that people had changed their attitude towards public funds. That is a statement which is more often made from this side of the House than from the other. There is undoubtedly an increased tendency on the part of the public to look for some sort of assistance and help from public funds instead of depending, as our fathers did, upon their own exertions. There was an interesting clash of opinion between the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Camberwell North West (Dr. Morgan) as to the benefits of nationalisation. The hon. Member for Southampton wants nationalisation of the medical services, but he does not want nationalisation, as the hon. Member for Camberwell pointed out, of the approved societies.

Mr. T. LEWIS: I never said so. I reserved my answer.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Member knows that that will not do. The hon. Member for Camberwell North West is
a doctor, and he wants nationalisation of everything except the medical service. He showed that plainly by his question. It was indeed a most interesting exchange of question and answer between two hon. Members, who I have no doubt on the public platform have expressed themselves in favour of universal nationalisation, as long as it was not of themselves. A little later the bon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) referred in terms which are more generally used on this side of the House than the other, to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He hoped that it would not be allowed to get on to the slippery slope that was leading to disaster. It was interesting to hear that it was on this slippery slope. We all thought that since the genuinely seeking work Clause has been abolished everything was satisfactory in connection with unemployment insurance. Apart from these expressions of opinion on smaller points, there has been a general measure of agreement as to some of the main facts which are causing a little disquietude in all quarters of the House. Everyone will agree that it would be a great disaster if the National Health Insurance scheme became merely a form of public assistance—and it is not too late now to save it. It may be too late, and it is therefore much better to advertise the troubles which are causing uneasiness at this stage rather than wait until it is too late and then bewail the fact that disaster has overtaken the fund.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to give us a, little more guidance upon some of the definite questions which were put to her. She took refuse in the old worn formula that the subject was engaging the earnest attention of the Government. Of course it is. She said that conferences were being held and committees were being appointed—everything was in the future, but nothing definite in answer to the pointed questions which have been asked. The hon. Member for Southampton said that what he wanted to know was whether the Minister was satisfied with the present position of the National Health Insurance Fund and its administration, and, if not, what was he going to do?

Mr. T. LEWIS: What I asked was whether the Minister was satisfied with the medical services.

Sir T. INSKIP: I think his question was a little wider than that, but, even so, the hon. Member has not had an answer.

Mr. LEWIS: I quite agree.

Sir T. INSKIP: There were other questions, equally pointed and clear, which the hon. Lady entirely evaded, except to this extent that she said they were the subject of consideration by the Minister. It may be convenient before we part with this subject to summarise the facts which are not in dispute so that they may be known in the country. There is no doubt that the additional benefits of some societies are in jeopardy. Some societies are even getting to the position of being in a deficiency. The duration of sickness claims is not responsible for this position. Broadly speaking, the duration of sickness claims has not increased. There is, equally, no doubt that a substantial number of people are making claims upon the fund who have no moral or legal claim upon it. It has been put as high as 12 per cent. by a representative group of approved societies, but whether it is 12 per cent., or a little more or a little less, there is no doubt that a number of people are making claims upon the fund who have no right to do so. Although it is easy to exaggerate, undoubtedly it is a position that ought to engage, and I have no doubt has already engaged, the attention of the Minister.
The next question is that the increase in the claims is more largely felt in the case of married women and young men. I am not sure which causes me the graver disquiet, but I think the fact that the young men are making increased claims is the more serious development. Then there is a fact which has not been sufficiently recognised, and that is that the growth in the number of the sickness claims is out of all proportion to the deepening of the industrial depression. Undoubtedly it may be due in some part to the unhappy increase of unemployment, but it is a fact that the increase in sickness claims is not to be accounted for wholly by the increase of unemployment.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a statement which rather disturbs me, and it affects a great mass of people. He referred to the days when people were willing to do for themselves things that they now want done by others. Before these claims get through, who certifies the claims? That information ought to be kept in front of us if we are to debate the matter properly.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Gentleman has not had the great advantage of hearing the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House who are intimately acquainted with this question. [Interruption.] The hon. Member displays some irritation which makes me think that he ought to be a claimant upon the fund. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is angry with me for speaking about this subject in terms which I thought represented the measure of agreement between Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. HARDIE: You are suggesting that there is some foul thing going on with certain people.

Sir T. INSKIP: I am not suggesting anything foul. My very next sentence, if the hon. Member had not interrupted me, would have been a statement that in spite of these undoubted facts, which no one will deny, it is very easy indeed to exaggerate the fact, if it be a fact, that a certain number of people are making improper claims, just as it is easy to exaggerate the fact, if it be a fact, that many members of the medical profession are perhaps a little too easy-going in the granting of certificates. The hon. Member appears to be anxious to place all the emphasis upon the defects of the medical profession.

Mr. HARDIE: No; you are.

Sir T. INSKIP: I have not referred so far to the doctors. I should have come to that subject in the ordinary course of the few remarks that I desired to offer. A question which the Parliamentary Secretary did not wholly face to-day is, what is the Minister going to do about this position? He has, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich pointed out, called attention to the necessity or desirability of the doctors being perhaps a little more careful.
But I think the position calls for something more definite and more drastic than a mere suggestion of that sort. The hon. Member for Westhoughton has two remedies. His first suggestion was that the doctors should be brought more in touch with the consequence of their certificates, that they should be made to realise how much money depends on the grant of a certificate. I am not sure that that is the right way to enable the doctors to do their duty. I think a doctor should use his medical skill by addressing his mind to the condition of the patient, and not to considering what may be the consequence, great or small, of granting a certificate. It is quite enough to diagnose the patient's condition without diverting his attention to considering what may be the consequence upon some fund about which he knows nothing. That suggestion of the hon. Member was less helpful than some put forward.
The next suggestion, which no doubt finds a greater measure of agreement among hon. Members opposite than on this side, was that the medical service should be nationalised. I shall not be expected to agree with that, and I do not believe that any doctor sitting on the benches opposite will agree with it either. Imagine 16,000 medical men nationalised as a State service. Imagine the questions that would be asked in this House as to the way in which these State servants were carrying out their duties. I do not envy the task of the Minister of Health if that proposal is ever adopted. Two other proposals which have been made are rather more helpful. One was that a little more attention should be given to the system of sick visitation which obtains in many of the best conducted societies. A great deal undoubtedly could be done if that was stiffened up, and if societies were not merely persuaded but induced to introduce a more comprehensive and carefully organised system of sick visitation.
The other suggestion which I think is likely to prove even more useful in discovering the cases of improper claims was that the operation of the regional medical staff should be speeded up. Its usefulness, as everyone knows, is to some extent diminished by the fact that there is a certain tardiness in its operation
to-day. If the second medical opinion could be called in a little earlier, possibly the right; diagnosis would be made so as to prevent anything in the nature of an improper claim being made on a society, but whether you ascribe the undoubted increase to the tendency on the part of some people, married women and young men chiefly, to make a claim which they ought not to make, or to the easy going character of the medical profession, undoubtedly the one tendency acts and reacts upon the other. If there are people—human nature being what it is, there will be people—who will make a claim which they ought not to make, if they find a medical man easy going they will be encouraged to make such claims in greater numbers. Similarly, if a medical man finds a great many claims coming along, he naturally passes a greater number of claims, human nature being again what it is.
Medical men are the kindest-hearted people in the world, and I believe that most of us, if we were medical men, would prefer to take the risk of passing persons about whom we were not perfectly satisfied if they were ill, rather than take the risk of refusing them a certificate. We would run the risk of passing a wrong claim rather than the risk of rejecting a right claim. We shall not get very much assistance in this question by attempting to distribute blame amongst the classes who make these claims, or amongst the doctors. Let us try to discover some system, some improvement in the operation of this fund, such as a better and more efficient visiting or a quicker operation of the regional medical staff. Let us try to improve the system, and then we shall reduce to a minimum the improper claims which are causing disquiet to-day. I was sorry to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that a levy upon the central fund is under grave consideration. The central fund is the fund of all societies. If it be a fact that laxity of administration in some of the less well conducted societies is causing the difficulties, the result of making a levy upon the central fund will be to make the good societies pay for the lax administration of the bad societies. You will be getting very near the proposal of pooling when you have a levy on the central fund.
The central fund exists for well-defined purposes, and the Minister ought to be
quite certain that he has exhausted all the possibilities of improving the administration of the societies in relation to claims, before he allows the levy which the hon. Lady says is under discussion. Frequent references have been made to the Economy Act. If there be spilt milk, there is not much good in crying over it. The withdrawal of State contribution effected by the Economy Act may have been right or it may have been wrong, but, if the withdrawal or reduction of that contribution had never been made, the ills—if they be ills—which we have been discussing this afternoon, would have been just as great. A greater State contribution might have cloaked these evils, but it certainly would not have ended them. The effect on the funds of these societies would have been inevitable, though it might have been postponed, if the State contribution had been continued at the old level. I do not want to go back on a controversy which is closed at any rate for the time being, but I venture to suggest that the Economy Act has nothing to do with the question which has mainly engaged the House this afternoon.
In spite of the very pointed questions and suggestions addressed to the hon. Lady I did not observe any indication on her part, as representing the Ministry, of paying back the money which was taken away by the Economy Act. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis) in addition to putting certain questions, made that suggestion. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) made the same suggestion in still more direct terms. He told the hon. Lady that she could not reduce benefits, and must not increase contributions, and that the only way out of the difficulty was to pay back the money taken away by the Economy Act. The hon. Lady made no response to that suggestion. I remember hearing the Minister of Health make many an acid speech about the Economy Act but I do not discover any anxiety on his part to prove that the words uttered four years ago were well-founded—words promising that, at the earliest possible moment, the mischief which we were supposed to have done would be repaired. The hon. Lady studiously refrained from dealing with that question and as I have mentioned the hon. Lady I may close by recalling
to the attention of the House the difference between the expectations which were held out by her and her colleagues and their performances. Her words no doubt are well remembered:
We will deal with the people who are suffering from hunger and cold, from want of boots, from want of milk, from want of clothes. These are things which a Labour Government can cure within three weeks of coming into office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1929; col. 1601, Vol. 227.]
If the increase in the claims upon this fund is due to the fact that industrial depression has increased unemployment it is the hon. Lady's fault, according to her own admission because she said she could put it right in three weeks. If she provided the milk, the hoots, the clothes and the coal which she promised to provide within three weeks of coming into office, all the industrial depression in the world would not have brought about that increase in the number of claims upon the societies which is making them so anxious. I hope that the hon. Lady's experience will produce fruit and that hon. Members who sit behind her will be less reckless in their promises at the next General Election. If they address their minds to the improvement of the National Health Insurance Fund instead of promising the moon to their constituents at the next Election this Debate will not have been a waste of time.

Mr. QUIBELL: We have had an interesting Debate on the subject of health in its relationship to national health insurance, but I think we might profitably discuss the question of health also in its relation to housing, water supply, sewerage and the like, and deal with some of the causes, as well as the effects. I want to draw attention to what I regard as one of the most fruitful causes of ill-health and, in particular, to what I consider to be the shortcomings of the Ministry in this respect.

Major ELLIOT: Hear, hear.

Mr. QUIBELL: I am pleased to hear the approval of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which is very helpful. Reports are continually being sent in by medical officers of health drawing attention to lack of water supplies and proper sewerage schemes, and I submit that where new housing schemes are being laid before councils and before the Ministry, it should be the Ministry's duty to see
that proper and efficient schemes of this kind are being provided. Some time ago the attention of the Ministry was called to the case of a town which was being developed on what were regarded as real up-to-date town-planning lines. It was advertised in these words: "Come to the new health resort, Kinmel Bay." There were picturesque posters showing what a wonderful place it was. In that place there is no main sewerage scheme whatever. Over 300 houses have been built and each one of them has nothing but a cesspool. Here is a case in which a proper scheme is essential to protect public health and prevent disease. Surely the provision of a main sewerage scheme in a town of that size where the houses cost up to £1,000 each, a town which is supposed to be a health resort, is a work on which unemployed labour could profitably be employed, and steps ought to be taken by the Ministry to deal with it. It may be said that the local authority has the duty of providing such a scheme. I have seen dozens of schemes in my time, and have passed dozens of plans for the laying out of estates and in every scheme—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): Is the scheme to which the hon. Member refers a scheme subsidised by the Ministry of Health?

Mr. QUIBELL: Yes, in some cases these schemes are subsidised.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only raise a point of that character if the Ministry are directly responsible.

Mr. QUIBELL: I need not confine mysef to any one scheme. I can find several. I only mentioned one to illustrate my point and I pass to another. That is a scheme of the Branston Rural District Council, near Burton-on-Trent. This scheme was approved in November, 1929, nearly two years ago, and not a single piece of work has been commenced on it to this day. I took the opportunity to confirm this as late as Monday night, and in that case, where 300 houses have been built, there is no sewerage scheme, although the district council has been pressing the Ministry of Health to get on with the job. It was approved on the 5th November, 1929, and not a single thing has been done. The same principle applies in this case as in the other. This
is a matter of public health, and surely, in the general lay-out of this estate, it is one of those burdens that the Ministry should see is not placed on the backs of the ratepayers. At least a plan should show where the sewers are to be laid, so that when houses are built it will be known where they could be connected up to them; and the general health of the people would to that extent be safeguarded.
The more I see of the Department in dealing with these matters, the less I like it. While we have unemployment and these practical schemes are put up to the Department, I cannot understand what it is that is preventing us getting along and trying to absorb some of the unemployed in this useful work. If an outbreak of disease occurred in either of the places that I have mentioned, heaven knows what would happen. If it is not the duty of the Ministry of Health, and if it is not the duty of the local council, whose duty is it to attend to these matters and protect the health of the community? In regard to water supplies and some of the old systems of sewerage at which I have been looking, I do not wonder that in many cases the medical officers of health, one of whom, in a case that I know of, has the magnificent salary of £20 a year—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Who built these houses?

Mr. QUIBELL: They have been built as an overflow, by private enterprise, chiefly, at Branston.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is criticising the Minister for what is not a matter under his jurisdiction.

Mr. QUIBELL: I cannot understand, where public money has been expended on the building of these houses, why we should not insist on certain conditions being carried out.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A few moments ago, the hon. Member was criticising the salaries of medical officers, and other matters under the control of local authorities. He must keep to matters directly under the jurisdiction of the Minister.

Mr. QUIBELL: The salary of these medical officers of health is in part paid
by the Ministry, and the local authorities cannot dispense with their services without the approval of the Ministry. Surely on some portion of this Vote we should be able to discuss the duties of the medical officers of health. There was a direct connection between the Ministry and the duty of the medical officer to report to the Ministry in order to draw attention to the shortcomings of these authorities, and as a consequence the central health authority should themselves be fully cognisant of the facts that I have tried to enumerate here, and should take immediate steps to see that the abominations that exist in these areas as a consequence of these hundreds of cesspools are removed.

Captain CAZALET: I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the questions of nursing homes, radium, and pure milk. In regard to nursing homes, in the latter part of 1927 a Bill was passed making it necessary for these various homes to register, and in some cases an alarming state of affairs was brought before the notice of the Ministry, which made them introduce the Measure which is in force to-day. I understand that the local authorities are largely responsible for the administration of this Act. However, I presume that it is their duty to report on its working to the Ministry, and we should like to know how that Act has been functioning and whether we can really say now that these various homes, for the closing of which the Bill was introduced, no longer exist.
With regard to radium, we have heard recently a good deal about the lack of supplies in this country. I believe there is a body of trustees administering this matter, but we should like to know whether the price at which we are buying radium is reasonable and that there is no ring being formed and this country penalised in having to pay very large sums for this necessary commodity.
Thirdly, with regard to milk supplies, we have heard on various occasions in this House about pure beer, but we do not often have a discussion on pure milk. It is obvious that this question is one of the very greatest importance to the health of the nation as a whole. I represent a milk-producing constituency, and so it is fitting, perhaps, that I
should raise this subject. The Ministry of Health, I know, take a very great interest in the subject, and only a few months ago produced a memorandum, entitled "Bovine tuberculosis in man, with special reference to infection by milk"; and therein a statement of the case has been made which shows that this subject has the attention, consideration, and sympathy of the Ministry.
I wish to put to the Minister a few questions in regard to this matter. I do not think I need elaborate the facts in any detail, because a very few facts will show the House what an important matter it is. It has been calculated that some 38,000 people die in England and Wales each year from tuberculosis. It is said that 80 per cent. of those people who are suffering from tuberculosis get it from milk. Some say that 30 per cent. and some say 40 per cent. of all the cattle in this country are infected with it. Lord Moynihan, in the House of Lords a few months ago, stated that £250,000 is spent in this country every day on the treatment of tuberculosis. Those few simple facts, I think, reveal the importance of this matter. There are some alarming figures given in this memorandum, on page 12, as to the percentage of milk samples found to be tuberculous during a certain period. Of the samples examined in Liverpool over 7 per cent. were found to be tuberculous; in Birmingham the figure rose to 7.6 per cent.; and it is an almost equal figure in various other towns.
Another matter which undoubtedly concerns this question of milk is that of the varied significance of the terms employed in designating the different grades of milk. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture a little while ago pointed out that the various terms, Grade A and Grade A, TT were very confusing. The ordinary man in the street imagines that if he is purchasing Grade A milk it is necessarily free from tuberculosis, but it is not. Unless it is marked Grade A, TT, there is no stipulation that it is free from tuberculosis or is produced by a herd of cattle which has been properly examined. Therefore, it is quite clear that the need to-day, to quote from an article in the "Observer" a few weeks ago,
is not for the abolition of existing grades, but for a complete change in the misleading nomenclature. Buyers would then be able to tell from its official designation whether the milk belongs to the first or the second grade, and doctors would have confidence in urging parents to give their children more milk, because they would know what they were getting, and farmers would profit from this increased confidence as much as the children.
I hope that that matter will receive the attention of the Ministry. Various authorities are at work to-day trying to eradicate bovine and human tuberculosis. Much valuable work has been done by Dr. Griffiths, whose work is mentioned in this report. Various Members in all parties have been interested in the work of Dr. Spahlinger, and I should like to know whether we have the sympathy of the Ministry in this matter. I know that experts disagree upon this question. What reform was ever introduced and ever became successful on which the experts did not disagree at some stage of its production? I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the Norfolk test. Some years ago tests of the Spahlinger method were made in Geneva, where they proved to be 100 per cent. right. That was not considered sufficient to prevent people in this country investigating the method more carefully, and a few months ago a test was made in Norfolk. Many people, not merely amateurs, but properly qualified medical men and women, have come to the conclusion after the closest examination of these tests, that they were completely satisfactory.
There have been discussions, disputes and suspicions as to what the Spahlinger formula is, and it is the object of all of us in this House who take an interest in this matter, and of Mr. Spahlinger himself, that this formula should be given to the world as soon as possible. I am certain that if it is, very valuable and wonderful results will accrue to the people of this country and the world generally. I believe that the result will be the prevention of tuberculosis in children and cattle. The Government of Northern Ireland have specially voted a sum of £10,000 out of public funds in order that experiments can be carried on with Dr. Spahlinger's bovine vaccine. All who are interested in this matter, and, Mr. Spahlinger too, are anxious that the full light of publicity and investigation
should be brought to bear on it. I am certain that when the results are brought before the world, his name will be linked with that of Jenner, Lister and Pasteur, and that this great man will reap his just reward in contributing something to the real benefit, happiness and health of mankind.

Mrs. MANNING: I want to refer to a question raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller), namely, the question of maternal mortality. I am very interested in the Memorandum which was sent out by my right hon. Friend to the local authorities in December, 1930. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) asked my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago how many replies he had received to his circular. He replied that something like 139 local authorities had replied, that 102 proposed to make improvements in their maternity services, and that 13 have the circular still under consideration. That leaves something like 330 authorities which are not prepared to make any advance in what we all agree is one of the most tragic problems with which this country has to deal. That is entirely unsatisfactory. I have no wish to criticise or blame my right hon. Friend or his administration. Indeed, it has been within my knowledge over a period of 10 years that this particular problem has his warmest sympathy, and I know that he will give all the help he can. Ten years ago he was the chairman of the Consultative Committee to the Ministry of Health, and he called special attention to the problem at that time. The Act of 1918 gives us practically all that we need to deal with this terrible question.
I need not recall to the House the facts with regard to maternal mortality as outlined in the interim report of the Departmental Committee set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), but so astounding is our delay in dealing with the problem, that it will not hurt to remind the House once more that for every 250 births, the life of one mother has to be sacrificed, and that every year 3,000 women in England and Wales die in childbirth. The worst part of the problem, although in a way the most hopeful, is that 50 per cent. of those deaths are preventable. It is tragic because a death which might have been prevented is a great stigma upon the
Community, and it is hopeful because if the right methods are set into operation, this great problem of maternal mortality will be amenable to treatment. If any blame can be laid at anyone's door, it is at the door of the Ministry which preceded this. I have taken the trouble to apply to friends of mine on some of the authorities whose names are given in the paper circulated by my right hon. Friend, asking them why they are not prepared to go ahead with the extension of their maternity services. Over and over again I received the same reply, that they are held up by reason of the block grant which was introduced under the Local Government Act of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They canont expend any fresh money. Their financial arrangements were set out for five years, and the whole of their work is stereotyped and held back in this important particular until they get the next quinquennial assessment.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: They were given an extra £5,000,000 a year in order to help them.

Mrs. MANNING: That money is hopelessly inadequate to meet the needs of the situation, as any doctor in the House must be prepared to admit. I would even say to my right hon. Friend that I do not altogether agree with the statement in the Memorandum he sent out that a general practitioner can undertake the ante-natal work which is necessary. [Interruption.] Why not? That is my opinion, and I think I am entitled to that opinion, having regard to the reports of the British Medical Association, the Commission which considered the question of the training of midwives, and the report of the Commission set up by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston. Over and over again we see it stated that these preventable deaths are due to the fact that specialist help is not available. [Interruption.] Well, I ask you to read the reports if you do not agree. It is obvious, as the result of investigations of recent years, that from pregnancy right on to the time after child birth, and through the period of lactation, these mothers of the nation have a right to the services of specialists—gynaecologists and obstetricians.
I would call the attention of the hon. Lady if she is going to reply to the position in rural areas particularly, and would suggest that there are certain things which might be done administratively to prevent maternal mortality there. For one thing the first opportunity should be taken of providing a decent water supply to the rural areas. I would raise this question in connection with education, but it is much more important as regard child-bearing mothers. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite and in other parts of the House do not seem very sympathetic to-night. The idea of a pregnant mother carrying pails of water a quarter of a mile to her house ought not to cause a smile. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman opposite appearing so beneficent if that sort of thing makes him smile. I do not know that the telephone service has anything to do with my hon. Friend, but perhaps she can pass on the fact that babies are not born at any special time at night, and if the telephone service is cut oft after a certain hour those who have charge of maternity services in the area are not get-at-able. I am glad to see in the Estimates a suggestion that a certain amount of extra money should be given for the training of midwives. That is a move in the right direction, but I shall not be satisfied, of course, until we have a national maternity service. I do not know whether that would require legislation and therefore would be out of order in this Debate, but whether that requires legislation or not we could effect a great deal towards providing a national maternity service if the right hon. Gentleman would persuade the local authorities to get on with their job.
I have had put into my hands to-day the report of the Battersea municipal authority, which does excellent work in this direction. During the past nine or 10 years they have had a maternity ward and a borough maternity hospital. During that time the figures of maternal mortality have fallen to .91, as compared with a general rate for London of 3.35. We can get the same results everywhere if the work is put into operation. In an East End maternity home dealing with 2,000 cases a year only 4 per 1,000 mothers die. If we want an example from a rural area, I suppose one could
find nothing very much more rural than the bush in Australia. In Victoria, Australia, the general death rate is 5.59 per 1,000, but the Bush Nursing Association, which is an excellent association of trained nurses and medical men, have dealt with 2,270 cases in their maternity hospitals in four years and have had no deaths whatever to record.
The report to which I have referred came at an opportune time and yet at an inopportune time. It opened people's eyes to the tragedy of the position of affairs in this country, but it came at a time when hon. Members opposite had introduced the Local Government Act and made it absolutely impossible for further money to be spent or for authorities to go ahead. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can do anything, but I hope he will continue to stir up the authorities. I know his great interest in the matter, and perhaps when he replies he may be able to tell us whether he has been able to do anything with the friendly societies, whether he has been able, as he once expressed it at a conference, to get together under one great umbrella, the insurance societies, the friendly societies, the local authorities and the doctors, and all others interested in these services, in order to provide a national maternity service.

9.0 p.m.

Sir E. GRAHAM-LITTLE: I am very sorry that I missed the opportunity of intervening earlier on the question of National Health Insurance, and I crave indulgence while I put before the Minister a some what special point. I have just come from a meeting of the British Medical Association at Eastbourne, and I think I am the only Member of the House who has sat in that medical parliament and in this Parliament. I want to put before the Minister an earnest appeal to reconsider certain points of prime importance in National Health Insurance. I am sure non. Members will agree that we ought to make the medical service under National Health Insurance approximate as closely as possible to the conditions of private practice. The more we depart from those conditions the greater the dissatisfaction that will be felt by those who have to suffer. The latest regulation concerning the opportunities to insured persons of changing their doctors is seriously disliked by the medical profession,
which has to work the service. A unanimous resolution was passed at the representative meeting protesting against that particular restriction.
Hon. Members may not realise that under that regulation a poor man cannot change his doctor without giving three months' notice—in fact, he has to give one month's notice and then there is three months longer to wait, so that there is really a period of four months before the doctor can be changed, and during that period he has to pay the fees of the man whom he has chosen, which is a very unjust part of the regulation. The psychological effect of a free choice of doctors can hardly be over-estimated, and I am sure the Minister has not considered that aspect of the question sufficiently. That there should be a free choice of doctor is surely one of the most important points in the relationship between patient and doctor, and it is one of the facets of the problem which will be disastrously affected by the introduction of a State service. Let us keep to free choice of doctor as long as possible. The main objection to the free choice of doctor comes from the approved societies, and I ask the Minister to give an ear to the other side of the question as well as that which he has obviously been considering.
I ask the Minister's attention to another part of the National Health Insurance Service, and that is the difference in the treatment of private and insured persons represented by limitation of panel prescriptions. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman is in no way responsible for one of the chief Causes of this limitation to be found in the agreement made in 1927 by the then Minister of Health by which the chemists on the panel have first call on the drug fund. That arrangement has been characterised by the British Medical Association as dangerous, and it has been described by panel committees as being against public policy. I hope the Minister will be prepared to revise that arrangement. The hon. Member for Camberwell made a very valuable contribution in some letters to the "Times" in which he pointed out the absurdity of a resident on one side of Edgware Road being entitled to certain
medicines while a resident on the other side of the road would not be entitled to those medicines. These irregularities of practice are extremely unfortunate and they lead the panel patient to think that he is not being treated as other private patients are being treated.
I urge the Minister not to be too severe upon the panel practitioners who are trying to give as good a service to panel patients as to their private patients, and they are being penalised for doing it. I would like to point out that the dissatisfaction which is felt by insured persons, and by the public generally, with the National Health Insurance Act is a real thing, and I can give instances to illustrate this dissatisfaction. One is the enormous rise in the number of attendances at voluntary hospitals, which show a remarkable increase during the last 12 years.
A great proportion of my own patients are dissatisfied with their treatment under the panel doctors, and I know that at the hospital with which I am associated the figures show that the patients include a large proportion of insured persons. My experience is confirmed by the figures in connection with other hospitals. This means that while many people pay their contributions to the National Health Insurance Fund they are ready to pay another fee in order to receive hospital treatment. My own hospital dealt with 50,000 out patients last year, and I believe a similar number was dealt with in Guy's Hospital. No doubt there is a real dissatisfaction with the conditions imposed on patients under the National Health Insurance Act, and many of the reasons for this dissatisfaction could easily be removed. Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, has described the Health Minister as a pure despot. I invite him to exercise his despotism in rectifying these defects.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to call attention to another side of health work, and that is the question of national parks, which, I understand, now come under the purview of the Minister of Health. A committee was appointed in September, 1929, to deal with this question and it reported on 23rd April this year. I want to ask the Minister if he can say what steps the Government propose to take
to carry out some of the recommendations of that committee. The committee came definitely to the conclusion that action was necessary looking to the future, and that the public should not be deprived of some of the great benefits and rights which they possess at the present time. It is interesting to note that the Town and Country Planning Bill deals with a certain number of the recommendations of that committee in quite a satisfactory way. In their report the committee point out the generous attitude which landowners as a whole display towards the public in giving them access to their land, and they allude to the access which is possessed by the public to Crown lands and land held under the National Trust. They also point out that there are 1,600,000 acres of common land which cannot be built upon and are available to the public at all times. There is a danger unless steps are taken that the public may lose some of their rights. The committee, while appreciating the splendid work being done by the National Trust, feel that some of the work is far beyond the activities of the National Trust, and they think that it is necessary to stimulate a certain amount of activity among local authorities, which can only be done by a national committee in which the Government are interested.
No doubt it would be the desire of any such national committee to work through the National Trust and other bodies doing the same kind of work. The committee made two definite recommendations, and I ask whether the time has not come when the Minister can take definite action. The two alternative schemes recommended were (1) assuming a sum of £100,000 was available for five years and (2) assuming that only a sum of £10,000 was available for five years. In the first case, it is recommended that there should be appointed two executive authorities, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, and the duties of those authorities would be to inspect various areas which are suggested as national parks, to stimulate co-operation with local authorities and landowners, ascertaining the various opportunities which were available, and making various recommendations to the Government. They suggest that there should be a consultative council as a liaison body to work in co-operation with other bodies. In the scheme where
there is only £10,000 a year available for five years it is suggested that two advisory committees should be formed, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, and that those two bodies should perform the same duties as in the larger scheme making recommendations for grants through the Ministry of Health and work very much on the lines of the Royal Fine Arts Commission.
I realise that some of the duties which these executive authorities would have to carry out would in the long run require legislation, but I suggest that there is no reason at all why the two schemes—I hope the larger one will be adopted—should not be taken in hand at once, and why the Minister should not ask suitable persons to act on these executive authorities, so that they could tackle immediately the national problem of parks in a voluntary way without the necessity for any compulsory powers or legislation for a considerable time to come, though that necessity might arise at a later stage. I would urge the Minister, if he cannot make any definite announcement to-night, to say that ho intends at an early date to take action on these lines and to make the appointments recommended.
Coming from the general to the particular, I should like to call attention to a specific example of a proposed national park which is to some extent in danger at the present time. It happens to be a place that is well known to me. In the Midlands we have our municipal parks, and we have in South Staffordshire 200 acres at Kinver Edge. That is a very fine memorial park on the smaller scale, but the place that is most favoured in the Midlands is the area of Cannock Chase. It was formerly a Royal forest between Stafford, Tamworth, and Walsall. It comprises 10,000 acres of high moorland, with beautiful, unspoiled wild scenery. Perhaps I can best give just a picture of what it is like by quoting two lines from the Staffordshire song which says:
And it's oh! to race on Cannock Chase,
'Midst the golden gorse and brown.
That will give a picture of what Cannock Chase is like at its best, and it is very much hoped that nothing will take place which will interfere with it. It is accessible to many millions of the industrial population in that great area of the Black
Country between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and other spots in the Midlands, and it is well provided with transport facilities; but there is one danger which may arise there, and in other places too, and that is that underneath this beautiful unspoiled scenery there is a large quantity of very valuable coal. It is not suggested that any national park should be developed in such a way as to interfere with coal mining. That would be extremely foolish, and it would be impossible to ask that it should be done.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It could not be done without legislation, and the hon. Member cannot anticipate anything which involves legislation.

Mr. MANDER: I think you will see, if you will permit me to finish my argument, that what I am suggesting would not really require legislation at all. I was going to suggest that the Minister should be good enough, in his capacity of taking a general control of and interest in national parks, to get into touch with the authorities on the spot, point out to them the dangers that might occur to Cannock Chase, and ask whether it might not be possible to approach their coal mining operations on lines which would not interfere with the appearance of Cannock Chase. There is a very strong local committee of a representative nature, and its honorary secretary, Mr. Leckie, has quite recently addressed an appeal to the papers pointing out that, owing to the boring that is taking place on the top of Brindley Heath, in the very centre of the Chase, there is very grave and imminent danger to the amenities there. All that I am asking the Minister to do at the present time is to get into touch as quickly as he can with the local representatives of the coalowners, and use his persuasive powers to point out to them what may occur, and I feel sure that they will be susceptible to any reasonable appeal that may be made to them in that connection. To sum up, I would ask the Minister to do two things—to take up this case locally, and to act in a national way by the appointment of the committees to which I have referred. In doing that, I believe he will be taking really forward steps to preserve for all time some of the most glorious examples of the work of Nature in this country, and will confer on millions of our fellow-citizens the indefeasible
right to enjoy the sunshine and fresh air on soil which is their own national property.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In the large number of suggestions that have been made this evening, there is one general line along which one distinguishes a really dangerous division of opinion, which I should like to ask the Minister to emphasise on the right side. I am afraid that, as always happens in these discussions on the Health Estimates, as in the case of certain other social services, there is one answer that can be made to the criticisms that are put forward, and that is that those criticisms generally depend on the axiom of the inexhaustible purse. Many of the measures which have been suggested, and of which everyone would approve if there were an inexhaustible purse, are really entirely out of the picture at the present day on the present Estimates, because there is no inexhaustible purse, and proposals have to be limited to the measure of the capacity of the Treasury.
Therefore, our reply to a certain number of the criticisms of the late Government would naturally be that, if it be thought that the difficulties of the insurance system are due to the insurance system having been deprived of something like £5,000,000 a year, it is up to the present Government to supply the £5,000,000 a year; and that, if the difficulties in regard to the maternity service are, as the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning) said, due to the Local Government Act depriving local authorities of the power of expansion—a point which, obviously, is not entirely true as such—if that were so, it is up to the present Government to supply the deficiency. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof, and sufficient for the year 1928–29 were the finances thereof. We made them sufficient, and it is up to this Government to make the finances of the year 1931–32 sufficient for their needs. That criticism, therefore, does not apply to the present day. At the present day it is up to us on this side of the House generally to offer our assistance where we can to the right hon. Gentleman in the extraordinary difficulties with which he is faced, and in regard to which we agree with him that
it is the desire and determination of the whole House to maintain the efficiency of these services within the limits of the exhaustible purse.
I want to put forward, as a very small contribution, a suggestion as to the lines which, it appears to me, must be followed if we are to ensure economy and efficiency. That is the real problem. We meet with it in several of the questions that have been raised to-day. That is the difficulty of the desire for expansion and the necessity for expansion. We have had innumerable committees. The committee, to which reference has been made, set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) to explore the ground of maternal mortality, definitely suggested expansion of the maternity services in various ways. The hon. Lady the Member for East Islington made a very good suggestion, although she did not recognise how good it was, when she gave an illustration of the extraordinary means being adopted out in the bush in Australia, where by personal service, without, I presume, any constructional expense and other building of hospitals, but by the bush nursing association and such means, they were able to reduce maternal mortality to almost nothing. That is just an illustration of a fact which does require to be borne in mind.
There is far too great a tendency to think that the real progress of expansion must be in bricks and mortar and that you have to have something large, striking, and expensive if you are to get a move on. That is an echo of the various reports which we have had. We have a suggestion to that effect in regard to maternal mortality and it is suggested in the case of mental hospitals and mental deficiency, which is a matter on which I should like to have an explanation from the Minister in view of the Act recently passed. We have it again, as regards the development of local government hospitals and the vast expenses which are to be incurred in expanding and providing greater accommodation in the hospitals. But because we have a limit to our finances we may have to go much more slowly in these matters than is often suggested. It may seem from that
that we are going to reduce efficiency or progress, but that is not necessarily the case. It must be recognised that these buildings are useless unless you have the personal services to fill them, and personal services are perfectly useless, buildings or no buildings, unless you have, equally, assistance given by the individuals themselves, with information and understanding to make use of what is provided for them.
The personal service is of overmastering importance, and therefore it seems to me that in this time of straitened finance, when the Minister has to cut down and keep the services at a minimum, he is not necessarily reducing the progress if he is trying to make the most use of the services which do exist, voluntary, official or otherwise, and is trying to develop the maternity services, the nursing services, home visitation of the sick, aftercare and pre-care and all those different points which are being worked at by the associations connected with these services in the promotion of the health of the people. There is great need of that, and it would be perhaps useful if the community as a whole were to have a short armistice from building, and if efforts were devoted to the expansion of the personal services. These things do depend a good deal on the actual policy laid down by the Minister and supported by this House.
I will not attempt to go into details, but I could give cases where the machinery at the present moment is being used to press material development at great risk to existing services. I know, personally, of one small hospital in a town in Kent where they have been told they must expand from 12 beds to 25, and they say that may break up the present excellent hospital, and it is doubtful what will become of it. I have also heard the same thing happening in regard to the expansion of local government in my own county. One of the voluntary hospitals is threatened because it cannot meet the needs of the county authorities on its voluntary basis. I want to ask the Minister what is being done to make use of the voluntary hospitals in the combined scheme under the Local Government Act, 1929? We must put away from us all prejudice in the matter if we are
to give the best services to the sick. We must use the existing hospitals, whatever the future may be.
Therefore, we ought to encourage the use of both official municipal and voluntary hospitals. It may be said that that is not being done. I heard of a big industrial town where an absolute rift between the municipal and voluntary hospitals is growing. In London things are going in such a way that the voluntary hospitals are likely to be put on one side entirely, and the municipal hospitals will suffer until they have developed overlapping services. We are at the parting of the ways. It may be necessary one day for us to be on the basis of an official hospital service, but I do not believe it, and I hope not. At the present time, in the interests of the sick poor, and owing to the exhausted purse, I ask the Minister, while it is not too late, to see that officialdom meets with voluntaryism, with all their rival prejudices, and that he creates opportunities and possibilities of combining them. Lot him do that before this cleft becomes too wide, in order that we may make the best of an extraordinarily difficult financial condition of affairs, so that it will be totally unnecessary for him to carry out his threat that he would die in the last ditch before he would economise. He has got to economise, and the last ditch has been filled in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to die. We ask him, therefore, to make the best of these economies.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I rise as one with long life in front of me, and not likely to have to die in the last ditch. My memory goes back to the first discussion we had on the Estimates of my Department when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) came down to the House bristling with indignation, filled with passion and contempt and all kinds of conflicting emotions, and quite certain that I should be the worst of all Ministers of Health. This afternoon I sat here and preened myself while the right hon. Gentleman threw bouquets at me minute after minute, and I came to the conclusion that, after these unfortunate forecasts, the right hon. Gentleman has come to
see the light. He has realised that, after all, this Government and this particular Department is not quite as bad as he tried to lead the House and the country to believe.
A good deal of our attention to-day has turned upon the system of health insurance. The hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) spoke almost entirely on this question, and asked what we were going to do. Then he made two suggestions as though they were entirely new suggestions, and something which had emanated from a master mind. They were two suggestions which we had actually put into operation, and are working at as actively as is possible in the circumstances. He wanted more attention paid to sick visitation. Why, half the complaints we have had to-day have been that there is too much. Some of my hon. Friends have made that kind of suggestion. The second suggestion was that there should be greater use of regional medical officers. That, again has been one of the complaints, that we are making too ready use of regional medical officers. So I think we can say we are doing all that the hon. and learned Gentleman has suddenly discovered that we ought to do, and we have been doing it most of the time.
There has been on some sides of the House, perhaps, a little too much emphasis on improper claims. There is not the slightest doubt that there are improper claims. Swinging the lead is not a new device invented in the last year or two, and, under any system, you will find people who make improper claims and who, by doing that, are robbing their fellows. I would gladly sweep all those people out of benefit, but we have to be careful that in tightening our administration we are not going to deny the just claims of sick persons. It is easy to become a little too stringent, but it is much easier to become a little too slack. Improved administration and greater co-operation between all the agencies concerned are having a very substantial effect. In 1930 the total expenditure of all approved societies on sickness and disablement benefit was £2,000,000 less than in the previous year. It may be that 1930 was a lighter year for sickness, but I think part of that
saving was undoubtedly due to improved administration and to more effective cooperation between the panel doctors, the regional medical officers and the approved societies. The improvement of last year has continued during the first half of this year, and the sickness claims for the quarter which has just finished are the lowest recorded for any quarter for several years past. So that the steps that have been taken are now beginning to prove effective.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more detailed? What is the percentage of the last quarter compared with the Actuary's estimate?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I could not say about the Actuary's estimate, but for the second quarter of 1931 cash issues amounted to £5,250,000, as against £5,500,0001 last year and £5,750,000 the year before.
May I say a word about the Economy Act. It has been brought into the discussion on one side and the other and we are told that, if it had not been passed, the evils with which we have been concerned to-day would not have been appreciably affected. But there is another aspect of the problem, and that is the disposable surplus of the approved societies, and the question of this legislation has a bearing, therefore, on the third valuation. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say we are crying over spilt milk, but they spilt the milk, and it was not their milk. [Interruption.] This is the very smart and flippant reply that we get in Debates of this kind. We have never received any assistance from hon. Members opposite when we have been wanting to do anything of that particular kind, but we could always get it if we are pursuing a most drastic policy of economy at the expense of the masses of the people. I should be a proud man if I were able to undo the evil that they wrought.
May I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell)? Kinmel Bay is no creation of mine. It is rather like that Peacehaven near which the right hon. Gentleman himself lived for so long. These monstrous growths upon the face of the earth are places of which no one can approve, and it is clear that there
ought to be no large-scale development for residential purposes without effective sewage disposal and adequate water supply. The impression that Members would obtain from my hon. Friend's speech was that nothing has been done and nothing is being done, and, indeed, he implied that nothing was ever likely to be done. He is one of my severest critics. Let me give the figures for the development of water supply and sewage disposal during the last two or three years. I take England and Wales as a whole, urban and rural, and I will give three years—1928–29, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, and 1929–30 and 1930–31 for which I take some responsibility. In the case of water supply, the loans sanctioned in the first of those years, in the last year of the late administration, were £1,650,000, in the next year £2,350,000, and last year £3,160,000,
As regards sewerage and sewage disposal schemes, the loans have increased even more considerably. In the last year of the late Government's term of office it was £3,600,000, in the following year £5,800,000, and last year £8,000,000. I come now to the rural areas which my hon. Friend seems to think we have entirely ignored. With regard to water supply, the figures have risen in rural areas in the last three years from £161,000 to £608,000, and for sewerage and sewage disposal from £635,000 to £1,700,000. Those are very considerable increases which have resulted quite definitely from the Government policy by an improvement in the grants for accelerated work. That shows that, in that sphere of the Department's activities, we can claim pretty substantial progress.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) raised several separate questions.

Mr. QUIBELL: What about Kinmel Bay?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Kinmel Bay is now finished with. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the question of nursing homes. It is very difficult for me to give any figure about that. They are administered by local authorities and our direct contract with them is primarily in regard to the surveys that we are making from time to time.
On the question of radium, as hon. Members know, a fund was established, partly from voluntary sources and partly from a grant from the Treasury, which is administered by a Trust set up by Royal Charter and by the Radium Commission, which is the body which is responsible for allocating and apportioning the radium. I think that I am right in saying that before very long practically the whole of the fund at our disposal will have been expended upon radium and the radium allocated by the Commission to the best of its knowledge of the circumstances. On the matter of milk supply which the hon. and gallant Member also raised, the whole question of milk policy is one that always troubles successive Ministers of Health and successive Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries from two rather different points of view. The question is now under active consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself. It is also true there is another difficulty in the way of dealing with it, and that is that I am afraid we cannot deal with it without legislation.
With regard to Mr. Spahlinger and his work, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred, I do not want to enter into a long controversy about the question, but I can speak upon this matter for all my predecessors during the last nine years. Our attitude has always been that we are quite willing either to co-operate with Mr. Spahlinger or to test any vaccine or serum he might produce. That offer still stands. If there have been difficulties, they are not all on one side. That offer has been repeatedly made, and it is an offer by which we still stand.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) raised again three points dealing with national health insurance. I suppose that national health insurance is about the foremost and most complicated question with which any administration has to deal. Here are the doctors on the one hand, here are the approved societies on the other hand, and here are other people interested, and between them they do not always quite see eye to eye. I am not myself ever likely to believe that they ever will see eye to eye. We have not got rid of the free choice of
doctor. We have partly, as a result of the investigations which have been made, limited the rapidity with which an insured person can run from one doctor to another, which is an entirely different thing, and has been done in the interests of the medical profession as well as in the interests of the insured person, and by that we stand. I am satisfied that in the long run it will be found to be in the interests of the medical profession, and while annual conferences will have their fling and kick up their heels and pass their resolutions, I am still not satisfied that the medical profession—[An HON. MEMBER: "At Scarborough?"]—I am referring to the conference of the British Medical Association, a fairly respectable body. I am not satisfied that they would feel so strongly as to take very strong action about it. It may be true that the arrangement which was made in 1927 is not as advantageous as medical men think it ought to be for the insured person, but that question raises a good many others which cannot be dealt with in to-night's Debate.
In connection with institutional services, you have a conflict of opinion. Doctors say that they do not want to have to deal with this matter if they are under the control of approved societies, and approved societies, on the other hand, say that they do not want to deal with it unless they have a finger in the pie. Between the two of them we seem to have got a reasonable working scheme which will not, of course, completely satisfy everybody, but which does happen to succeed in working pretty well. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for the University of London appeal to me to use to the full the despotic powers which the Lord Chief Justice believes I possess. It is an astonishing proposal to come from a person like him, more especially when from time to time I have taken quite a small part all my attempts have been opposed by Members on the other side.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) referred to national parks. I think that it is one of those questions in which there will be no difference of opinion on any side of the House as to the desirability of definite action on those lines. I cannot say anything to-night except that the
question of the report of the committee is under the sympathetic consideration of the Government at the present time. It is a question which will involve, I imagine, legislation, and although I should personally be delighted to go down and use the very email persuasive powers which I possess upon the mineowners at Can-nook Chase, I am not sure that past experience shows that mineowners are so amenable to reason as the hon. Member appears to think. I fear that even there it might require legislation, possibly.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to do what he can in the matter and get into touch with the local committee, who feel very keenly on the subject?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will certainly get into touch with them to see what can be done. I will do that with pleasure.
One or two hon. Members raised the question of maternal mortality, and questions were asked as to how far we had gone with appeals that have been made to local authorities. I should like to give the House the latest figures which I possess. Hon. Members are aware that some months ago I circulated a full Memorandum to local authorities making many definite suggestions for attacking the problem of maternal mortality, and asking them to take the necessary steps. On 21st July, out of 396 local authorities, replies had been received from 216, of whom 128 had actually adopted proposals, and, in many cases, were bringing them into operation, or had constructive concrete proposals before them. In some cases the Department has made further suggestions for the improvement of their services. The replies which have been received are being followed up with a view to ensuring that effective action will be taken.
The replies which we received up to the end of last month have been analysed, and they show that 31 authorities are establishing or extending ante-natal clinics, 16 arranging with private practitioners for routine ante-natal examination in suitable cases, 17 are improving their arrangements for the supply of midwives, 14 are arranging consultative services for doctors who need assistance, 20 are providing or extending hospital accommodation, and 37 are arranging
various types of auxiliary services. I should imagine that that represents a greater development than at any similar period in the history of the maternal services of the country, and I hope that hon. Members will do what they can to persuade local authorities to develop this tremendously important service, because, although it may be that times are hard for local authorities, I am satisfied that that kind of expenditure brings a very substantial reward in its train.
The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) faced us with a conflict between voluntary hospitals and municipal hospitals. My own impression, taking the country as a whole, is that it is not a conflict so harsh and so clear-cut as the hon. and gallant Member would think, although, as in London there is ranged on one side the voluntary hospitals and their supporters, and the public hospitals and their supporters on the other side. It is perfectly clear that in our existing hospital system, whether public or voluntary, we have not more than enough to satisfy our needs, and to pretend that we can dispense with either form of hospital is ridiculous. I have no doubt that for a very long time the two kinds and types of hospitals will go side by side. I would say, and I say it in all friendliness, that the voluntary hospitals must realise that the big local authorities will desire to develop their own provision in regard to hospitals, while working in cooperation with the others. I hope that there will be sufficient good will on both sides among the voluntary hospitals and the public authorities to make the maximum use of the existing hospital accommodation.
The hon. and gallant Member referred to my threat to die in the last ditch if

there was economy in the social services, and he said, quite solemnly and seriously, that economy in the social services there must be. This year's Estimates of my Department show no economy in the social services. They show expanding social services, and one of the pleasantest recollections of this year of my office is that the local authorities, hampered and trammelled as they are by hard times, many of them suffering financially from legislation for which I was not responsible, notwithstanding these difficulties, and irrespective of the political party in control, they have steadfastly gone on their way developing their essential services. When the money for this year is expended, I am satisfied that we shall find the public service of this country healthier and more vigorous than it was at the beginning.

It being Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, and of the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and the Revenue Departments Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1931.

CLASS I.

Question put,
That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the out-standing Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates.

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 139.

Division No. 463.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Birkett, W. Norman
Charleton, H. C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Chater, Daniel


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowen, J. W.
Church, Major A. G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cluse, W. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Broad, Francis Alfred
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Alpass, J. H.
Bromley, J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Ammon, Charles George
Brooke, W.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Angell, Sir Norman
Brothers, M.
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Arnott, John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George


Asks, Sir Robert
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Dalton, Hugh


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgess, F. G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Day, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Denman, Hon. R. D


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Caine, Hall., Derwent
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cameron, A. G.
Dukes, C.


Benson, G.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Duncan, Charles


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Foot, Isaac
Logan, David Gilbert
Sanders, W. S.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gill, T. H.
Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gillett, George M.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker. J. F.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Granville, E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gray, Milner
McShane, John James
Simmons, C. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sinkinson, George


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Manning, E. L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marcus, M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marley, J.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, George
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Messer, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Middleton, G.
Sorensen, R.


Harris, Percy A.
Mills, J. E.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, Major J.
Strauss, G. R.


Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick
Sullivan, J.


Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sutton, J. E.


Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph
Taylor, N. A. (Lincoln)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Toole, Joseph


Herriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.
Tout, W. J.


Hicks, Ernest George
Muff, G.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Vaughan, David


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh
Viant, S. P.


Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.
Walker, J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, H. W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Perry, S. F.
West, F. R.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, Joseph


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
White, H. G.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pole, Major D. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Kelly, W. T.
Price, M. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pybus, Percy John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Knight, Holford
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Richards, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wise, E. F.


Lawson, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.



Leach, W.
Romeril, H G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy



Leonard, W.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boyce, Leslie
Cranbourne, Viscount


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Briscoe, Richard George
Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Atkinson, C.
Butler, R. A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Campbell, E. T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. N. (Prtsmth, S.)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Christie, J. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bird, Ernest Roy
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Ford, Sir P. J.




Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smithers, Waldron


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerset, Thomas


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meller, R. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Aye)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Thompson, Luke


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hammersley, S. S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Train, J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormeby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Remer, John R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Iveagh, Countess of
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Womersley, W. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross, Ronald D.



Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Salmon, Major I.
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Captain Wallace.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Savery, S. S.



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

Question,
That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS X.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1931.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Re-solution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1931.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates (including Ordnance Factories Estimates),

put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1931.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the

Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"

put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1931.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 144.

Division No. 464.]
AYES.
[10.14 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gray, Milner
McElwee, A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McEntee, V. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McKinlay, A.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McShane, John James


Alpass, J. H.
Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Manning, E. L.


Arnott, John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mansfield, W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
March, S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marcus, M.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Marley, J.


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Marshall, Fred


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, George


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Haycock, A. W.
Matters, L. W.


Benson, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred


Birkett, W. Norman
Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, J. E.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Bromley, J.
Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph


Brooke, W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Brothers, M.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Mort, D. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Muff, G.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Horrabin, J. F.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Caine, Hal-, Derwent
Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.


Cameron, A. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Liewellyn-, F.
Noel-Euxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Charieton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Chater, Daniel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones. Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palmer. E. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Perry, S. F.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Daggar, George
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Potts, John S.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Knight, Holford
Price, M. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pybus, Percy John


Day, Harry
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Dudgeon, Major C. R
Lawrence, Susan
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dukes, C.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Raynes, W. R.


Duncan, Charles
Lawson, John James
Richards, R.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edmunds, J. E.
Leach, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Elmley, Viscount
Leo, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Foot, Isaac
Lees, J.
Ritson, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leonard, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy


Gill, T. H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Gillett, George M.
Longbottom, A. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Glassey, A. E.
Longden, F.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gossling, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sanders, W. S.


Gould, F.
Lunn, William
Sawyer, G. F.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scrymgeour, E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Granville, E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sherwood, G. H.
Sullivan, J.
West, F. R.


Shield, George William
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
White, H. G.


Shillaker, J. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shinwell, E
Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Shaft, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tillett, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Simmons, C. J.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Toole, Joseph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sinkinson, George
Tout, W. J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sitch, Charles H.
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Vaughan, David
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Walker, J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallace, H. W.
Wise, E. F.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watkins, F. C.
Wood. Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)



Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Palsley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bowdley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rood, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Boyce, Leslie
Hammersley, S. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R,(Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerset, Thomas


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Brtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Christ, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thompson, Luke


Cockeril, Brig.-General Sir George
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Train, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighten, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson. G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Meller, R. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Aye)



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [28th July].

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, the sum of £291,366,800 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. P. Snowden, and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending
on the Thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

GAS UNDERTAKING ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the British Gas Light Company, Limited, with respect to the Holywell undertaking of that Company, which was presented on the 23rd day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the South-gate and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 14th day of July and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:

In line 8 of Section 6, omit the words 'one-fortieth part,' and insert the words 'one quarter per centum.' "—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Brundall, Blofield, and Witton, and part of the parish of Great Plumstead, in the rural district of Blofield, in the county of Norfolk which was presented on the 14th day of July, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Barnstaple, Bideford, and Torrington, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1382 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the parish of Forest Row, in the rural district of East Grinstead, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1582 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the compulsory acquisition of easements or other rights for overhead main transmission lines in and over certain lands situate in the county of Essex, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1S82 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the burgh of Lerwick and part of the parish of Lerwick, in the county of Zetland which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1931, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Ulverston, in the county palatine of Lancaster, and part of the rural district of South Westmorland, in the county of Westmorland, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—[Dr. Addison.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 5.—(Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation, education and research.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 38, after the word "product," insert,

"or any kind, variety or quantity thereof,"

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: On a point of Order. Would it not be possible to agree to all the Amendments en bloc, as there are several pages of them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be very unusual. Members might want to speak on them.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 33, line 6, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provision as to the incorporation, registration, and winding up of Boards.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 6, at the end, insert:
by reason only of his being or having been a registered producer or a member of the board.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Dr. Addison.]

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Just after the last Division, I tried to get a copy of these Amendments at the Vote Office, and I was unable to obtain them. There are several paragraphs which I have not heard read, and I want to know if there is any way of obtaining the information for which I ask.

Mr. SPEAKER: The procedure is quite in order.

Mr. SMITH: I was merely asking what is the position of an ordinary Member of the House when he asks for these Amendments at the Vote Office.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not a printed copy of them myself.

Mr. SMITH: How does one get a copy?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must listen to what is said.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Special Government contributions to housing expenses of certain rural district councils.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 19, leave out "the preceding Sub-section" and insert "Sub-section (1) of this Section."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Miss Lawrence.]

Sir K. WOOD: What is the meaning of this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: This is purely a drafting Amendment. Although it alters the phraseology, it does not alter the sense.

Sir D. NEWTON: May I ask where we can get a copy of these Amendments?

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith."—[Miss Bondfield]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions with respect to benefit in the case of special classes of persons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 27, leave out "nor widows."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Miss Bondfield.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that this Amendment raises a question of privilege.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask that on this occasion what I believe has been the custom in the past may be followed now, and that the Minister may give us some information, as the Minister did in the last case, as to whether this Amendment is purely drafting, or whether and to what extent it is one of substance?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): This is purely a drafting Amendment. It was by an inadvertence that these words appeared in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made with regard to this Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.